Interesting, I'm not sure if a computer has the ability to recognize something as a "natural move but also a blunder." It would require a very human-like way of thinking about moves, which computers don't generally have.
Probably the easiest case of "natural move but blunder" is anything that is a top 3 engine move when looking 3-5 moves deep, but losing significantly on deeper evaluation.
Also, this sort of categorization is at the heart of how chess puzzle collections are automatically assembled. A good chess puzzle contains an unnatural move that wins--the exact opposite of the natural but blunder. Chess sites scan their online play databases for these all the time, and serve them up as puzzles.
Any human 1500+ can recognize the natural human move. The way the computer thinks about moves is different.
I really don't believe that Stockfish can tell you "this move is tempting, but wrong."
I'm sure you could build something in that might kind of work, but until I see it I'm skeptical.