No, cyclic stresses are a different animal altogether.
But considering it's just a matter of attaching ballast to sink it, dropping ballast to raise it, there's nothing preventing cyclic testing vs. static @ max depth over the same duration.
It seems obvious to me that you'd want to burn through a few test hulls characterizing the fatigue limits and verifying they are at least consistent hull-to-hull with a deterministic failure point you can plan for retiring before approaching.
You just need resources to burn on destroying enough hulls for the data.
And there's a rub there; as you inform the process via destructive iteration, odds are you'll first find the manufacturing process isn't even controlled/consistent enough to make progress on answering the "so how many cycles before go boom boom?" question until you've gone through a good chunk of runway figuring out how to even make it properly multiple times.