I strongly say no.
Seems to be no consenus at all. Some think session distribution is important, some TiZ
Personally I am in the sessions camp, (as was Seiler last time I checked) it makes a lot more sense than TiZ, why?
Look at how you body responses and recovers from sessions with and without intensity, EPOC or stress on the autonomic nervous system etc…
Spliting distribution in to TiZ is totally nonsense without further context, well it can be dependent on how the TiZ is accumulated. Just looking at the TiZ only represents the stress of that work (that interval plus the next intervals), with no consideration of how TiZ was accumulated, the response, post interval stress, post workout stress and recovery needs, that is not how the body works / responds.
IMO, training distribution ‘falls out’ of planning training to address the gaps from where you are to where you need to be.
Plan the sessions and the required recovery from those session for you based on your time restraints and training background. The distrubution will be what it will be.
Taking a generic distribution say 80/20 and planning sessions or TiZ based on these arbitrary numbers is totally backwards, it is not the starting point IMO, where does your goals, gaps to goals, training history, recovery needs, time availability, age, general health, life stress etc come into this? I’d suggest it doesn’t
Keep it simple, train hard, take as much recovery as you need until to can train hard again, on your hard days address the gaps from where you are to where you want to be. This requires experimenting or picking a plan that has already been designed to addresses your weaknesses and tweaking it for you based on how you respond.