1) It has the author's name on the top-left corner of every page. I am aware this would probably not irritate the target audience, but it felt like I was reading a piece of English GCSE Original Writing coursework circa 2003.
2) In a similar way to said coursework, it is highly derivative. When you are 16, this is acceptable. When you are not, it is less so.
3) The whole "young people believing propoganda from a dictatorship" thing is good. Patrick Ness does this brilliantly in his Monsters of Men trilogy. It works much better when there is a central character that is likeable.
4) The central characters are not likeable.
5) The central characters are called Evie, Raffy and Lucas. These are names from your average middle-class primary classroom circa 2013. They are not names for adults in a bizarre post-apocalyptic landscape. I don't know what those names are, but they are definitely *not* Evie, Raffy and Lucas. Teens are not scared of names that are unfamiliar. She seems to have used names from nieces/nephews etc. Another strong link to the C/D borderline hinterland of Original Writing coursework.
6) and BY FAR the most irritating. If this was better written, and had more likeable characters, it would have been fantastic. It felt rushed and sloppy. But the basic premise is completly brilliant. It needs picking apart and re-writing. Much like a... you get the picture.