Considering that "the laws of physics" means by definition "the things that are observed to happen in the natural world" I don't think observable phenomenon can break the laws of physics. They can change our understanding of the laws of physics, but the laws themselves remain the same. It's a bit of a definitional issue though.
I think that they actually mean "our description of how reality works". As in, the laws are part of the map, not the territory. "Breaking" those laws just means finding out they're an inaccurate description.
Considering I believe that we discover physical laws, rather than invent them, that definition makes less sense to me.
We make maps of new lands that we discover. And, those maps may be inaccurate. They often are.
what you say is true, but in this case there is no voyaging the territory going on at all. what the engineer proposes is like looking at a map and correcting the map without exploring the real world. it is possible to guess corrections to the map without actually exploring the world, but it means detecting inconsistencies. Correcting the map without travelling or referencing neglected observations would entail a realization. For example suppose our map of the world looked like 3 copies of the world, and we somehow believed there are 3 New Yorks, 3 Paris'es etc, that seem to develop in parallel, ... then the person proposing that the first repetition is actually a return to the same point would be making a point to the rest of the world using the triple copy earth. Here there is no pointing out a misconception of the laws of physics, and there is no referencing of anomalous observations, so you can not fix the map using nothing but the old map unless you also point out what is wrong with the map.
Where can I observe these magical laws you speak of?