So you (plural you) have finished a project, and this is the point where it is reviewed? Well, whoever planned it has made a giant blunder. Reviews should happen whenever you have done about a day's worth of work, not when your whole team finished a project.
Let's look at it from the company's point of view: They have the choice of accepting it as it is, or accepting it with a small amount of necessary fixes, or follow the reviewer who says the logic is unacceptable and spend months on ripping it all out and rewriting it. Guess what the company will go for. Will they delay the project for months and pay your team for months to fix things? I DON'T THINK SO. You mentioned "tight deadlines". The tight deadlines will obviously not be met if management listens to the reviewer.
Now if your project doesn't work (doesn't pass QA), that's something else, but if it works, this senior reviewer will have some hard time convincing management that months of extra work is needed.
That said, as a senior developer I have my favourite ways of doing things, and I would like you to do things the way I prefer them, but I'm adult enough to know that there are other ways that are fine as well. Maybe second best, or third best, but the third best way to do something is usually good enough. And I wouldn't tell you to change things because they are not done the way I prefer, but only if things are objectively bad.
Go to the meeting with an open mind. Stay calm all the time. Maybe some camomile tea before the meeting starts, but not too much. There's a rule: The one who shouts is wrong, so don't shout. If the reviewer turns out to be right, admit that he's right. If he is not right, state what you think calmly. You can say that you don't agree that your logic is wrong, or that you absolutely don't agree that your logic is wrong. Calmly, without shouting, that's important. If you shout then people think you disagree because you can't look at your own work objectively and can't stand being proven wrong. If you say it calmly without shouting, they'll think you disagree because you are right. You can also say you don't agree his approach is better, or that it is definitely not enough better to justify lots of work.
At some point some decision has to be made. If it's up to the reviewer to decide, then you write down what that decision will cost the company, that you don't agree with the decision and why, and how much it will cost if you don't go with that decision, and you give that to someone whose budget is affected by a lengthy delay.
You need to do that before work starts. So if complaints come in after three months about the delay (when the manager whose responsibility it all is gets pressure about the delay), you can point out that your team told the manager that all this wasn't needed, and you are not stuck with the blame.