To quote from your document "when you claim something, you should be able to prove it". Can you prove "not under any program?" Of course you can't.
That's a bit mean (there's no way you can prove a negative). But it goes to show the level of sophistry and equivocation in your analysis.
I looked through the document and was thoroughly unimpressed. I don't think you're engaging with the material at the same level others are (e.g. metadata = surveillance & NSA has direct access to metadata -> NSA surveillance by modus ponens). Nor are you considering the vast body of documents, just some choice ones related to PRISM.
I would very much like to believe that somehow Pulitzer Prize winning journalists with the endorsement of The Guardian and everyone who followed merely read some diagrams wrong but after having read your document I can't convince myself of that, nor would it be consistent with other leaks, whistleblowing accounts, policy objectives, etc.
Good work though, I think it's important for people to actually look through the slides/material themselves. I think it's great you're doing that.