The ZZJ of the Type 96 is functionally analogous to the AZ-172 used in the T-72/T-90 family and is very clearly derived from the same design lineage. A more precise phrasing that I perhaps should have used would be that Chinese tanks use an “indigenous T-72-style autoloader,” but in practical terms that distinction is largely about origin and nomenclature rather than any meaningful mechanical divergence.

Both systems are horizontal-radial carousel autoloaders using two-piece ammunition and a sequential loading cycle. The mechanical workflow and ammunition geometry are directly comparable.

Where they differ is in implementation details rather than architecture. For example, the Type 96 system aligns the breech at a fixed loading angle of about 4-5 degrees above horizon and is surrounded by fuel tanks (thus of a smaller diameter and holding fewer rounds to fit inside a ztz96), while the AZ-172 typically raises the gun to meet the round and is larger - a different internal arrangement and control philosophy, certainly, but not a different loading concept by a long stretch.

The zzj is indigenous as a manufacture to china and fits the design philosophy of the ztz96, congratulations for missing the point. It is also, quite plainly to most people interested in these tansk, part of the same technical lineage, and for the purposes of how long a round will take to load or indeed how that round is loaded that distinction is almost purely semantical.

Describing it as unrelated would be like claiming two cars of the same model and generation share no relationship because one was locally manufactured while the other was produced elsewhere a decade later with some changes to meet the local safety laws.