[noone_important]

This comparison is not really fair. On the one hand you have the prediction of a scalar excitation with a lot of restrictions (cosmology and naturalness). On the other hand you have a giant framework that can predict or fit almost anything.

Don't get me wrong, I still regard string theory as a big success. It taught us a lot about mathematics and field theories in the last decades. However the predictive nature is basically non-existant so far.

[bdjsiqoocwk]

Nonsense. It can't predict everyone, in particular it won't predict special relativity bring violated.

In addition you haven't addressed the main point here which is that when some people say "can predict" they mean "in principle it can predict" whereas other mean "can predict today with currently available technological means". Regarding the former: yes it can. I already gave the example of one such prediction, but here's another one: all particles niches have stringy modes in their spectra. Regarding the later: maybe, but thats a problem with our technology, not with the theory.

I feel this conservation is going in circles already.

[noone_important]

Just because they are not mainstream, you definitely can have lorentz violation in string theory [0]. Spontaneous symmetry breaking can lead to induced finsler geometries, which can basically have multiple light cones (when there was the "faster than light neutrinos" result on the table. Some people used finsler spacetime to explain them).

So you made your prediction only by choosing an axiom.

There is a reason that even some proponents of string theory call it the theory of anything.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/0708.2250