No, this is a misapplication of the fallacy. In a NTS fallacy, there is an existing definition accepted by all involved. A claim is made of an intrinsic characteristic, contrary evidence presented, then the definition is changed to discount the evidence.

I don't agree with the '6 cases' conclusion, but in this case, we do not have a universal accepted definition as a starting point. Instead, there is serious and valid question of how to evaluate causality when numerous factors contribute to an outcome.