Is there a critical analysis of this work ( https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.00431 ) that claims to develop a new representation of microstate and then using this representation as a reference-and-imbedding-structure, to develop a new foundations of an intelligible reconstruction of the Hilbert-Dirac formulation of Quantum Mechanics ?

This paper hasn't been published and the ideas behind it don't seem to have attracted any interest in the wider community so far - so I wouldn't be surprised to find that there isn't any serious critical analysis out there.

If anyone is aware of any serious discussion in the literature, please post it. But failing that, I'm not seeing much that can be productively discussed here under the forum rules.

It is well-known that in the second part of his life Louis de Broglie turned into a genuine crackpot and gathered around him all sorts of crackpots who used his fame and endorsement to publish intellectually-sounding bs. This lady (who appears to have written a wiki page about her - only a woman would skip the birth year in a biography!) is no different. Her "advertised" work never appeared in a respectable peer-review journal (unfortunately "Foundations of Physics" is half-crackpot, half-real) nor will it ever do so.

Stop wasting your life with pseudoscience. It will never bring you recognition in a mature community. De Broglie is dead for 30 years, but his unfortunate pupils still believe they are doing something important...

If someone is serious about reconstructing QM foundations, before you expect someone to invest reading 159 unconventional pages you should motivate the reader(a physicists) briefly with which open real questions in physics this aims to solve in the first place?

I searched the paper and found not even anything mentioning gravity or unification but find nothing.

But it says

"It offers the principles of a new representation of microstates called a second quantum mechanics and denoted QM2, that is devoid of interpretation problems and fully reconstructed conceptually and formally in its structural principles."

IMO, to rework an excellent theory, only for the sake of "interpretations" makes little sense to me. OTOH, if the reworking is motivated by making it more natural how to EXTEND the theory to the open problems such as unification of forces, then its a difference story. But i dont get the impression that there is any such ambition in this paper.

The real question is - and this the author needs to explain before expecting anyone to read. WHY would this "second quantum mechanics" make it EASIER to solve the open problems such as unification of forces, gravity, cosmological models etc?