No he isn't. Review the scenario.

It's my scenario. I'm talking about my hypothetical, which I'll
reproduce below:

I don't know, but in the following hypothetical case (that you could I suppose argue would never happen) I can see it.

Fred is a certified weather observer, but the station is officially closed. Fred is also Susan's husband, and Susan is flying back from Kalahachee and getting ready to land at the small airstrip near their home. So Fred goes down to wherever he can make certifiable weather observations, looks out the window, and makes a certifiable (but not certified) observation, which he relays to Susan on the ham radio. (As it turns out they are both licensed amateur radio operators, so the transmission is perfectly legal). Susan forwards this observation to ATC and asks for a contact approach. Donna at ATC says fine and clears Susan for the contact approach.

Something Goes Wrong.

In the subsequent investigation, the FAA throws the book at Fred, Susan, and Donna, claiming that the contact approach should not have been requested or granted, the observation wasn't "official", wasn't available to ATC, and all that rot.

What sticks?

Does it matter that the weather at the time was in fact CAVU?

....to which I later clarified that Fred reported the ground visibility.

Now granted I stated that Fred was a =certified= weather observer, not
that he was an =accredited= weather observer. I expected my meaning was
clear, but just to be explicit, in the =new= scenario where Fred is not
only certified but also accredited, I ask the same question.

What sticks?

Jose