No. An accessibility arrangement affects how someone attends an appointment, not what the case must establish. Citizenship, a qualifying listed profession with its accepted credentials, prearranged professional employment and temporary entry are assessed the same way, and no office treats a medical need as a substitute for that evidence.
Keep the evidence work on its own track
It helps to run two parallel workstreams. One prepares the substantive file: proof of citizenship, the employer's description of the professional duties, and credentials matching what the listed profession accepts. The other handles logistics and assistance.
Mixing them tends to delay both, and an officer reviewing the case will look at the evidence on its merits regardless of what arrangements were made for the visit. Three separate strands get conflated here, and only one of them governs. The first is participation: how a person physically attends and communicates on the day.
The second is proof of identity and status: citizenship, and the family relationship where a dependant is involved. The third is professional eligibility: whether the actual duties fall within a listed profession, and whether the applicant holds what that specific profession requires. An accommodation moves only the first strand.
Hypothetical example: a plant breeder with a mobility impairment receives written confirmation of step-free access and an extended interview slot, and the file still turns on whether the degree and any licence match the listed profession named in the employer's letter. Self-employment remains unavailable under TN regardless of any arrangement, and services to a U.S. entity solely owned or controlled by the applicant are prohibited on the same terms as for anyone else.