It depends on how much of the role is genuinely analysis, design, and evaluation work versus hands-on coding. A title of 'systems analyst' does not settle this; the actual weighting of duties does. A role that is substantially programming work needs review as its own question rather than being assumed to fit under the analyst category.
Weigh the duties, not the label on the offer
Ask for concrete detail: how much time goes into requirements gathering, system design, and evaluating solutions, compared to writing and maintaining code day to day. A role where programming clearly dominates reads differently than one where coding supports a broader design and evaluation function. This distinction should be settled with specifics from the employer before assuming the analyst framing on the offer letter is accurate.
Two points make that conversation more productive. Where a role genuinely sits between two listed professions, the answer is not to choose whichever sounds more favourable; each listed profession carries its own requirements, and the credential relied upon has to match the profession actually claimed rather than the general field. A qualification that supports one category will not necessarily support its neighbour.
It is also worth remembering that the authorization relates to a particular employer and the position described, so a description settled now has to keep matching the work afterwards — which makes an accurate answer today cheaper than a flattering one. Hypothetical example: an urban planner's offer describes policy analysis and site assessment, but the team's actual work has drifted toward project coordination, and the review establishes which profession the credential supports before anyone decides how to characterise the week.