On another note, I dislike how “Zero-Knowledge Proofs” are called proofs. It’s not a proof. You iteratively increase your belief that the result is true, like in experimentation, but that’s not a proof.
If someone has signed something cryptographically, wouldn't you say that the signature was a proof of someone with the private key signing it? (Even though it is possible to construct a valid signature without the private key - you just have to be very very very lucky)
I guess you also don't like the name Proof of Work.
It might help to think of the sense of "proof" that's synonymous with "trial", rather than a specific formal math sense of proving a theorem from axioms by formal transformations.
zero knowledge corroboration isn't the same thing as a zero knowledge proof. If the provided evidence isn't enough, then you keep iterating until it's proven.
I guess you also don't like the name Proof of Work.