> In the article, the person who resigned is presented as a respected expert on the subject. Maybe that person has more context that didn't make it into the article.

it’s not a context thing, it’s (as the article makes clear) a complete disagreement over your point #3. She does not believe the trust should be empowered to hold the de-anonymized raw data at all or grant acccess to it to any party at all, over concerns that it is both too valuable a hacking target and that companies will be incentivized to ask for as much data as they can get whether or not they “need” it. She has little faith in the ability of contracts to enforce data access and deletion policies on private companies (nor should she, in my opinion, as we’ve seen how little impact they had on restraining the (mis-)use of Facebook data)