Not considering that the "natural born citizen" language was suggested by Jay, in his letter to G. Washington, who just happened to be the President of the Convention.
You appear to be misunderstanding me. I realize the terminology change was made. But you continue to assume the terms mean completely different things, or rather that B is a subset of A.
I see no reason the terms cannot be synonymous.
The presently dominant originalist school of constitutional study does not obsess about what G. Washington, J. Jay or any others of the writers meant when they wrote it. The relevant factor is rather what those who ratified the Constitution took it to mean, since their approval was what put it into effect.
Since I believe neither the Federalist nor Anti-Federalist Papers bring up the issue, the meaning surely can’t be too wildly obscure. Since naturalized citizens were explicitly allowed to hold all other offices, given the specified number of years as a citizen, it is reasonable to assume that the President was by contrast required to be a non-naturalized citizen, a citizen at birth, or a natural-born citizen.
I think we’ve beaten this one thoroughly to death. Have a nice day.