Not automatically. Explain the true identity history and provide the documents requested for the case. A lawful name change or spelling variation should not be treated as proof of ineligibility, but an unresolved discrepancy should not be ignored. The authorities still conduct the required identity and eligibility review.
Explain the difference instead of rewriting the record
Identify which record uses each name, when it was issued and what links it to the applicant. Ask how to present a material discrepancy through the official process. A contribution does not waive accurate disclosure or vetting, and a neatly organized chronology does not guarantee the decision.
Keep the underlying originals available for further questions. The response that makes an explainable discrepancy worse is the one that guesses. Asked why a birth record and a passport differ, an applicant proposes that the registrar must have made an error, and has now asserted a fact about someone else's records that cannot be supported.
Say what is known and mark what is not: this document was issued on this date by this authority in this name, and the reason for the difference is unknown. Then ask what the official process expects in that situation. Hypothetical example: a dietitian's professional registration was issued under a maiden name that appears nowhere in the current passport, which is ordinary and explainable — provided the marriage record connecting the two is produced rather than described.