I guess it depends upon the interpretation of your authority. I know of a case where the proposed candidate had 4500 hours TT which included 480 hours of “airborne” instruction but 200 of those were as a TRI on the 737. In all other respects he was the ideal candidate with good instructional technique, leadership skills, management ability and administrative/organisational skills.
His sim and ground time were not acceptable. Perhaps a different inspector/authority would have looked on the situation differently and said yes. I also suggest the complexity and scope of the ATO would be a point of consideration as I know of another gentleman who had only 800hr TT/600hrs Instruction for the PPL who was appointed CFI of a small one aircraft ATO because “no-one else could be found”.
Best recommendation I can give is to speak with your CA and “seek their guidance”.