Science is defined by testability. A theory that can't be tested is just pseudoscience, unlike a theory that just can't be tested right now due to technological limitations.

It would be pseudoscience if it were to be seen as or communicated as fact. It’s not.

Any newly observed fact can falsify these theories. It just takes a long time. There’s still tons of open issues on General Relativity too. So far though, it seems to have passed every test.

Would you call GR pseudoscience too then? Since it’ll likely never be fully verified.

> would be pseudoscience if it were to be seen as or communicated as fact. It’s not.

Pseudoscience is something labelling itself as science while not adhering to scientific standards. Claiming it's a fact would be a dead giveaway though.

Relativity has been experimentally tested and made accurate predictions, it is impossible for it to be "fully verified."

> 2) Aren't these theories reasonably falsifiable insofar as they'll eventually result in experiments designed to map out the possible domains of the space? eg, what if we build a much higher energy collider and finally find real evidence of the super-symmetry particles?

Would you treat not finding super-symmetry particles as falsifying those theories? AIUI those theories admit the possibility of such particles but also the possibility of such particles not existing, so they're not actually falsifiable that way.

Most theories' predictions are not open ended. It's possible to exhaustively search the prediction space to falsify them (up to an experimental standard that you need to agree on). I'm by far not an expert on super-symmetry but from what I've seen the prediction space of the most common SUSY models is getting continuously boxed in.

I think super symmetry is almost falsified. People just cling to it because there is (almost) nothing else. If any new theory comes around without supersymmetry (but other predictions) people will jump ship.