Convoluted and sophist constitutional reasoning is becoming increasingly normative today. As a practical matter, you may be on to something. that is why we have Roe vs. Wade and Obergefell vs. Hodges.
Your analysis would render the NBC provision of Article II superfluous and meaningless, and render it to be no different than the “citizen” applied elsewhere in the constitution, when the understanding at the time of the ratification of Article II clearly meant a special protection for the office of POTUS. I think that the framers of the constitution would be as amazed at the controversy over the Article II meaning of “natural born citizen” as they would be over what “well regulated” means in the Second Amendment.
Actually I think the framers of the constitution would be amazed at how badly they screwed up the whole misguided concept of Natural Born Citizen.
The Act of 1790 was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which extended the residence requirement to five years, and by the Naturalization Act of 1798, which extended it to 14 years. The 1798 act was repealed by the Naturalization Law of 1802.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790