Do you leave out the possibility that the same reconciliation of the two sets of equations might be achieved by some other, more simple and elegant means without invoking any redundant entities?
If they're necessary to explain the phenomena they're not redundant.
But if you think you can do better, feel free to try.
While you're at it, it's always bothered me that Newtonian mechanics involves all this pesky calculus. Can you come up with some "more simple and elegant" method involving counting on my fingers? Clearly the fact that the math is difficult is a weakness of the theory.
There are two distinct possibilities here. The first possibility is that I am an ignorant fool and after eight years of pouring over the equations like you suggest, I should discover what those putative dimensions are in aid of exactly and how any strings can possibly vibrate while not being attached to anything, how anything possessing zero height can possess any width or length and so on. Study for eight years, understand at last and be ashamed of my previous ignorance is the programme. The second possibility is that it is you who are fooling me, yourself and everybody else here and all those putative extra entities and invisible dimensions in aid of is to enable you to feel important and condescending while juggling around fantastic concepts possible on paper only. Which is it, I wonder?
Here's a clue: out of those who have studied advanced physics, exactly zero have come to the conclusion that its purpose is to enable Nuggin to feel important and condescending.