[count-your-change]

You should go back and read your own #22 post and check the references of the posted article.
In the one from Geology (10) etc., you would find (caps mine) this sentence on what was found:

“ORGANIC chemistry, carbon and nitrogen isotopes, and carbon/nitrogen ratios are consistent with a fungal origin.”

Then the abstract adds,
“Unequivocally diagnostic data, however, may have been precluded by post-burial replacement of its organic constituents.”,
so the posted article
was correct in repeating what the abstract referred to, “organic “ chemistry though the role of the fungus was not “unequivocally” established.

Using the term “fossil” obviously wasn't intended to mean nothing of the original was left.

[Ira_Louvin]

The use of the term fossil means that the original had been mineralized or turned into rock, the traces of Carbon and Nitrogen are remnants left over from when the fossil was formed, just like all rocks, say for example granite. Are you saying that granite was once alive since it contains traces of Carbon and Nitrogen?