If the modus operandi is to just add variation to an existing species, not merging two different species, this would not happen. It would look very much like, if not identical to, CD.
I think she is being 100% upfront that it would be a direct act of creation by God. She isn’t playing the ID game of calling it an unknown designer.
She didn’t mention barriers. As she has laid it out, she doesn’t need to posit them. She isn’t claiming “evolution couldn’t overcome a barrier.” She is rather just claiming that “God created different kinds.”
This is a strength of what she is proposing here. Rather than disputing the evolutionary account, she is offering another interpretation that might be valid (obviously to be determined with more inquiry). She has also explicitly stated that this is not a scientific explanation. I’d call it a science-engaged view that may or may not be true (we can be silent about this), but is outside science because it invokes God.
I’m spelling all this out because in this conversation @AJRoberts is avoiding all the typical pitfalls of ID and OEC, that are often more about attacking evolution than putting forward a different interpretation. I think this is a better direction. Our focus, I think, should be on determining if there is falsifying data, rooting out bad arguments for it, offering good arguments to replace them when we can, and seeing if it could work.
This appears to be one of the bad arguments for it, in my opinion.