It’s not the current caveated form that is in question here, it is the oracle-reliant design.
Eric Wall

If it’s simply a comment on oracles in general, you might want to read up further on that topic. It’s been thoroughly discussed and its advantages/disadvantages are very well known. In the case of prism, you won’t be reliant on one of their trusted oracles, and there will be(supposedly) ways of selecting your own oracle service if you so choose. Meanwhile, there’s projects like Oraclize (as you mention), Mattereum, and other types of dispute resolution/information-feeding services in smart contracts working to alleviate the identified disadvantages.

Prism has used all their terms consistently with industry-understanding and direction. Oracles are not yet in a perfect state, and there is understanding of how they are not “trustless” in their current form while a product can be even if it utilizes oracles. There doesn’t seem to be any slight of hand on their part in light of your review independent from industry norm. If your critique is on oracles in general as they are understood by the industry, then it should be stated as such. It seems like you’re attacking the wrong target by singling out Prism.