Why not?
A valid block is a valid block. The protocol and the rest of the network doesn't care how that block came into being, nor does the network know how that block came into being.
That's what I thought, thank you for confirming my suspicion. I was thinking that I may be missing a subtle technical reason for a mining pool being required to run a full node but I couldn't think of one.
How would you know if they are running a pruned node or not?
I'm pretty sure most miners just try which pool works best for them and then point their hashrate on it. Unfortunately people are barely caring about keeping the hashrate decentralized, I doubt many care about whether their pool of choice runs a full node or not as long as its reliable. Besides, if your pool is large enough you already got a big fat target painted on your back either way. There's plenty of reasons to DDoS a mining pool, them not running a full node probably being one of the pettiest.
Miners should create valid blocks. That's all. They are welcome to run full nodes and distribute the blockchain if they want to, but there is no requirement for them to do so.
From a purely business-oriented perspective, miners don't care which chain to follow. Rationally speaking they will simply follow the currency that is the most profitable. I also don't think that miners care much about user experience when it comes to a newbie opting for the Bitcoin Core wallet.
Whether they should run a full node from a "corporate responsibility" point of view is a different question of course. But I doubt it meaningfully influences their bottom line.
That I could imagine to be a valid point of concern for a mining pool operator.