But is it still a fallacy if there is an actual causal relationship? As in - if there is time/temporal precedence and covariation and other factors cannot explain it „casual relationship“.

Wouldn’t that mean that one argument could be implied with the other correctly? This would be not an error in reasoning (structure) anymore then, or would it still be?

Isn’t that what you said by „listing consequences“?

Sorry for asking you again, but it is a field with which I only partly have experience with (I‘m the „empirical science“ type… the only fallacy that has been interesting to me previously was artefacts in statistical analysis) and your explanations are short and understandable and to the point and help me understand it. Thank you!