I sympathise with all of you. I have come across so many LTE theories - it is probably the most controversial of all helicopter flight theory topics.
Many textbooks give the usual three LTE scenarios : (1) wind from the rear, (2) wind from the main rotor and (3) tail rotor vortex. Some say the tail rotor stalls in LTE ; others say it does not stall but rather merely loses its effectiveness.
My flight school says that weathercocking in a tailwind is not LTE : it's only a pedal control problem. This is akin to the B206 POH warning against running out of left pedal in a right crosswind : it's just a control problem, not LTE.
Frank says that the tail rotors of his R44s are large enough to be LTE proof. However in practice, R44s are crashing due to LTE even with left pedal full forward.
I am also well aware of Nick Lappos's theory that LTE does not really exist : it is entirely due to undersized tail rotors. I personally believe that is a plausible explanation, although I have found that insurance companies do not buy that argument when the proverbial hits the ceiling rotor. Insurance companies revert to the traditional Bell definition so that the blame falls squarely on the pilot, not the manufacturer. That is the reality of LTE.
Whatever label you call it, or however it develops, the proper corrective action of reducing torque will avoid increased premiums, litigation and a lot of butt pain besides.