I don't recall article 5 making any specific mention of any type of weapon.
An accurate statement which begs the question of why a nation must be a signatory to an additional agreement beyond being a member of NATO to receive this nuclear insurance policy.
The US has used its nuclear stature to provide stated and implied protection to its allies. The Norway-France agreement may be a tangible sign that the perception of US nuclear stature has shifted.
Very plausible. Wouldn’t that implied threat remain under article 5 via the UK or French arsenals? There’s actually 9 nations who have signed up, Norway is just the latest. That leaves over 20 other NATO nations who haven’t inked similar agreements with France. I’m curious if there would be a different level of French military response afforded to them if the balloon goes up?