It can be, but if the control arm axes are not parallel to the centerline of the car, that can also give anti-dive. I know some Honda double-wishbone front suspensions did this. In that case, it was the upper arm pivot that was significantly angled in plan view. Doing this can create a situation where the anti-dive effect gets stronger and stronger as the suspension compresses, but in droop there is not so much effect.
If I understand the original post correctly, the LCA pivot axis is closer together at the rear of the car than it is at the front of the car. If that's the case then the lower ball joint would tend to get pulled forward with suspension compression. When that happens, it tilts the spindle backwards (against the normal braking-torque direction) a little bit. That suggests an anti-dive that increases with suspension compression. Pulling the lower ball joint forward also directly opposes the braking force - again, anti-dive.
The thing about this arrangement is that at whatever ride height where the ball joint is at the same height as the LCA pivot axis, the ball joint will be moving straight up and down, but it will only start getting pulled forward more and more as suspension compresses beyond that point. Thus, no caster change at that ride height, but anti-dive progressively builds (and caster start changing) with suspension compression.
I have a suspicion that it's done this way to have at least some anti-dive, but minimize the adverse effects of changing caster with suspension movement.
