It can, but it is assessed on the facts rather than on the chart. What matters is whether the proposed position primarily manages an organization, department, subdivision or essential function with genuine discretion. Functional influence without decision-making authority is more likely to read as coordination.
Bring the exceptions with you
Counsel needs the awkward facts: the approvals someone else grants, the local leader who can decline a request, the budget held elsewhere. These do not necessarily defeat a case, and they are far better raised in the first conversation than discovered later. Where authority is genuinely shared, ask what evidence would strengthen the position or whether the organization should adjust the structure before a case is prepared.
Two structural points help frame that conversation before the awkward facts are gathered. The test is whether the proposed position is primarily managerial or executive, which is a question of proportion across the whole role rather than a search for a single decisive power, so a matrix arrangement is not disqualifying in itself and neither is a shared approval. What matters is what the position does with most of its time and what it genuinely decides.
Second, managerial capacity can rest on directing an essential function rather than on a headcount, which is often the more accurate description of a matrixed role — but the function then has to be identified and the authority over it evidenced. Hypothetical example: a general contracting group's regional lead has no direct reports and controls a bidding function across four countries, and describing that function, its boundaries and its decisions produces a far stronger account than an attempt to characterise dotted-line influence as supervision.