Sorry, I disagree. Yes, I understand the definition very well and no, PC fouls are not TC fouls. If a PC foul was a TC foul, then the Fed would have listed them together under the same article and listed the exception. They didn't. If a PC foul was a TC foul, then it would meet the definition with the exception noted. It isn't. It's no different than a double foul being a different animal than a false double foul or a multiple foul being different than a false multiple foul. It's a separate situation and it calls for a separate definition.
I realize that team control can exist during a PC foul and that the penalty is the same. But it is not a TC foul by definition. Get them to change the working of the articles/rule and I there. Until then, no.
BTW, I couldn't care less what the NCAA men or women's rule is. I can accept, "Except for the airborne shooter exception, PC fouls are have similiar characteristics as TC fouls."
But they are not TC fouls.