Not in this game it isn't, because this game isn't reality. It's a necessarily crude simulation. It can't include anywhere close to the number of variables necessary to cover everything. There is no 'cause,' there's just a bunch of abstractions chosen by the developers.
This is not reasoning that supports NED breaking the game rules.
If you're reduced to strawman arguments, you might want to reconsider your position.
I believe you're mistaken about the meaning of strawman. I'm not asserting that you suggested that Susquehannock annex Austria and arguing against that. I'm asserting that the reasoning that supports this statement is identical to the reasoning you used to support NED, explicitly picked to be ridiculous in order to showcase the state logic doesn't work.
For example, the formation of the Mughals is currently far, far too rare.
On what basis do you make this claim?
It's both a game with abstractions that makes things happen because they were in a history book. In fact, it uses abstractions to make historical events appear - I'm not sure why you think they're in opposition.
The game uses rules to follow its abstraction. A certain select few events break these rules because reasons...reason that apparently can't be stated in a self-consistent fashion.
any historic event is sufficient justification for special treatment to increase the likelihood of it happening.
The Ottoman sultan opting for a different breakfast one morning is a historical event. A peasant's farm animal dying in England in 1500 is a historical event. There actually does need to be a line drawn here, and where you draw it should be consistent with the game's level of abstraction if you're not looking to undermine how the game plays.