I don't run a coordinator.
Plural you. You're a contributor, right? I presume you do have information about zkSNACKs. If you don't know, you can tell me.
If the coordinator has verified false positives, it really doesn't matter what the chain analysis company's techniques are because they didn't work.
But a coordinator is not a data analysis company. For zkSNACKs to verify that chain analysis gives false positives it has to either analyze the chain itself or pay another company to verify the chain analysis' positives. Since the former makes no sense, and the coordinator pays no other companies, I assume it simply accepts the paid company's claims without questioning anything. Is that correct?
If you don't expect your transaction data that you broadcast to everyone else's computer for permanent storage to be analyzed by anyone, you're just naive.
This is not what I said. I only said that I don't expect regular Bitcoin users to switch to full scrutiny entities. I only expect surveillance companies to do that, e.g. chain analysis companies.
The solution to your problem of public transaction data exists already: WabiSabi coinjoins are purposely designed to make the data you broadcast useless to any analyzers.
Making transaction data useless to data analyzers after they have approved they don't mind, ergo that data is useless to them beforehand, doesn't seem like the solution to my problem.
Did you mean "doesn't this prevent already surveilled users from having their privacy established?"
Could be, but not necessarily. We frequently notice centralized exchanges (which have partnerships with chain analysis companies) to simply deny coins coming from mixers*. There is no excuse, there are just users who have had their privacy protected, ergo have not been surveilled, but were included in blacklists, simply because of the way tainting works; you either blacklist the entire set of unspent outputs coming from a mixer, because you can't figure out where's the "unethical money" so it's unethical to leave them unpunished, or you don't because you can't figure out where's the "ethical money" so it's unethical to punish innocents.