There are several languages with which you can discuss the standard model, particularly Group Theory, which I don't think require much familiarity with the details of QM. I assume this is what the GP is talking about given his mention of Noether currents.
I say this as someone who is quite familiar with QM, so it's very possible I'm just neglecting to consider all the implicit context I'm working with.
Group theory has applications in QM, but you can't go from the standard model to experimental results through group theory alone. To do that, you need to understand all of the physics concepts leading up to it. Even knowing what a conserved quantity is involves some of that implicit context you're talking about.
I don't agree that this is the case; it's possible to make predictions about physics over the SM in the language of group theory without understanding how they map to experimental results in physics.
I say this as someone who is quite familiar with QM, so it's very possible I'm just neglecting to consider all the implicit context I'm working with.