I think the note about this trope being ONLY when it's a separate power from Time Stands Still is a bad definition.
Tropes are not about creating a scientific taxonomy of of superpowers based on in-universe logic. They're about how storytelling devices are used in stories. The narrative effect of Frozen Time is step one, and produces certain reactions in the audience and potential situations in the story. The narrative effect of seeing another character moving in frozen time is step two, and produces further, different reactions in the audience, and creates different situations in the story. What does it matter whether the Mover In Frozen Time can do so because it turns out they can also make time stand still, or because they're simply immune to time standing still? Either way the core result is still the same, "oh wow they can move in frozen time!" and potentially becoming an obstacle for the Time Freezer to contend with.
I would argue this kind of note comes from a misplaced desire to treat trope distinctions as some kind of scientific taxonomy that has fundamental biological roots that trace back to origins emerging from fictional universes, whereas of course those fictional universes actually emerge from storytelling, so we should categorize their tropes from a storytelling perspective. Another way to say it: If we existed IN a universe with Frozen Time, it might be useful to study the CAUSE of freezing time vs the CAUSE of movement in frozen time, because we might discover a difference that tells us about the fundamentals of the universe. But we don't live in that fictional universe; in our real universe the storytelling IMPACT of freezing time vs the IMPACT of movement in frozen time has much more significance, because tropes tell us about the fundamentals of storytelling, not about our physical universe.
To make another comparison, in biology we sometimes see convergent evolution: Two separate evolutionary lines that result in very similar life forms are worth classifying differently because it tells us more about biological evolution. The distinction in question treats this trope explained two different ways as if it is the result of separate biological processes. In reality, it is simply one storytelling trope that can be explained in a few different ways, just as almost any trope can be justified in multiple ways.
I think the note about this trope being ONLY when it's a separate power from Time Stands Still is a bad definition.
Tropes are not about creating a scientific taxonomy of of superpowers based on in-universe logic. They're about how storytelling devices are used in stories. The narrative effect of Frozen Time is step one, and produces certain reactions in the audience and potential situations in the story. The narrative effect of seeing another character moving in frozen time is step two, and produces further, different reactions in the audience, and creates different situations in the story. What does it matter whether the Mover In Frozen Time can do so because it turns out they can also make time stand still, or because they're simply immune to time standing still? Either way the core result is still the same, "oh wow they can move in frozen time!" and potentially becoming an obstacle for the Time Freezer to contend with.
I would argue this kind of note comes from a misplaced desire to treat trope distinctions as some kind of scientific taxonomy that has fundamental biological roots that trace back to origins emerging from fictional universes, whereas of course those fictional universes actually emerge from storytelling, so we should categorize their tropes from a storytelling perspective. Another way to say it: If we existed IN a universe with Frozen Time, it might be useful to study the CAUSE of freezing time vs the CAUSE of movement in frozen time, because we might discover a difference that tells us about the fundamentals of the universe. But we don't live in that fictional universe; in our real universe the storytelling IMPACT of freezing time vs the IMPACT of movement in frozen time has much more significance, because tropes tell us about the fundamentals of storytelling, not about our physical universe.
To make another comparison, in biology we sometimes see convergent evolution: Two separate evolutionary lines that result in very similar life forms are worth classifying differently because it tells us more about biological evolution. The distinction in question treats this trope explained two different ways as if it is the result of separate biological processes. In reality, it is simply one storytelling trope that can be explained in a few different ways, just as almost any trope can be justified in multiple ways.
So: This trope is actually a Required Secondary Power to Time Stands Still, NOT distinct from it. And to preempt a silly counterargument - no that does not make the tropes redundant or unmanageable, anymore than Invulnerable Knuckles being a RSP to Super-Strength makes THEM unmanageable.