To some degree, how one views the current data depends on one's expectations going in. For the Higgs search, the LHC (and other experiments) had already ruled out the vast majority of the possible masses for the particle, long before it was discovered. But we didn't take that as evidence against its existence; instead, we expected that those results were "boxing in" the true value (as indeed they were).
So someone who considers the theoretical argument for supersymmetry to be very strong could interpret the current data in a similar way: the LHC is homing in on its actual form by ruling out alternative possibilities. On the other hand, someone who considers the theoretical argument unconvincing could legitimately see the current data as strong evidence against supersymmetry (at least at the weak scale).
For what it's worth, I recall seeing some predictions in 2008 by Abraham Seiden for the dates when the LHC would have enough data to see various potential new physics. (This was before the disaster when they first switched it on, so all of his dates are at least a couple of years early in practice.) He said that some versions of supersymmetry might be seen as early as 2009: those are (I think) the same versions that we're seeing data against these days. But he lists a date of 2017 for a "higher energy form of supersymmetry". So even before the data began to come in, everyone knew it would be quite a while before anything definitive could be said on the subject.
 There's an error for the original site, but here's a Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:1iyysX3...
Urs Schreiber speculated a while ago that there may be a connection between adinkra diagrams and categories
But to my knowledge, the connection has not been made explicit.
Category theory is an interest of mine I hope to develop further but there's a lot of preliminary learning I need to do first.
That talk was quite interesting. Especially interesting was the last question about being in a simulated universe. If he is finding error correction codes in fundamental equations, is the an implication there? He brushes the question of as currently philosophical, but the way he does it makes me think he might believe it.