That's not how the term typically used. Most people will assume you have only protected direct identifiers if you tell them data has been pseudonymized.
See section about the new definition under GDPR.
Like I said, modern privacy standards. The US is still quite far behind: I've had to do HIPAA training and it shows.
I'd advise you to set your bar a lot higher than your national standards if you ever plan to do international products: nobody in the US will complain if you use stricter definitions but you'll instantly be rejected in Europe if you call that pseudonymization.
I’m familiar with GDPR, we work with EU companies, and all the ones we work with use original definition. NIST link aside, these terms are hardly standards anyway. They are nearly colloquial vocabulary, which unfortunately in this space I expect to remain imprecise and vague. This why we generally only use it in marketing and comms, while in the actual product we drill down into specifications for direct and indirect identifiers, distortion, and risk.