Nope.
So long as you’re assuming it is a person who is part of a group and not literally assuming that it is a whole group of people. If you are automatically assuming it’s a conspiracy, then, yes by definition that would kind of make you a conspiracy theorist.
Or, y’know, if you assumed that the Postmaster General is actually a general and has declared war via the mail. That would also put you in the realm of conspiracy theory.
So you would not say that it COULDN’T be a Soros-related attack, just like I would not say it HAD TO BE a Soros-related attack. For both of us, the evidence would be the determining factor.
Presumably you would use the same epistemology for the Breitbart death - wouldn’t rule out a Soros-related assassination just as I wouldn’t assume it had to be a Soros-related assassination. The evidence would be the deciding factor, and following all the evidence.
A critical piece of evidence would be whether there was or wasn’t a small round hole where a dart could have entered the body. Why do you think the coroner said nothing about checking for that potential piece of evidence? If he had, that could have potentially been ruled out as a means of death. That would have been very useful to both of us, no?