No disagreement here. But I hold that this is an especially confusing way of describing independent statements, especially in this paper, which certainly was written by a logician.

I take particular issue with the phrasing because it confused me for years in highschool and throughout undergraduate. How could something be true and not provable? It took me until a model theory course to realize that it cannot, and most pop descriptions of the incompleteness theorem are - dare I say it - wrong. Though I'm sure you would argue it's not wrong, merely an informal description.

I would, however, expect a bachelor's thesis not to stray into such confusing territory.