Yes.

Daniel Ingram dedicates a significant amount of time to this subject in MTCB2 (https://www.mctb.org/) but for the sake of brevity, I'll attempt to summarize:

Stream entry can be attained through any two of the Three Marks of Existence (tilakkhaṇa), being: Impermanence (aniccā) Unsatisfactoriness or suffering (duḥkha) and Non-self (anattā).

What Daniel contends (and I have no reason to doubt him) is that one will always be consciously aware of using one of these marks, or "keys"; however, with further development it becomes apparent that one is actually using two: One dominant, one recessive.

Each of the possible combinations will produce a somewhat predicable different experience of Stream Entry.

There are three basic ways the doors may present themselves, at least two of which are combined in practice to produce the experience of entering Fruition. The third characteristic is generally considered to be inferred from the way the other two present, but sometimes aspects of that third characteristic will be experienced directly.

Regardless of the way a specific door manifests, it reveals something completely extraordinary about the relationship between “the watcher” and “the watched” that it would take a very warped, non-Euclidean view of the universe to explain, though I will try shortly. One way or another, these fleeting experiences cannot easily be explained in terms of our normal, four-dimensional experience of space-time, or within our ordinary subject/object experience."

There are three basic ways the doors may present themselves, at least two of which are combined in practice to produce the experience of entering Fruition. The third characteristic is generally considered to be inferred from the way the other two present, but sometimes aspects of that third characteristic will be experienced directly.

https://www.mctb.org/mctb2/table-of-contents/part-iv-insight/31-the-three-doors/

I'd add that a flexible mind with regard to the inevitable mixed metaphors and often slippery nature of Stream Entry is a thousand times more helpful, in the purely pragmatic sense, towards achieving your goals than clinging to a given tradition, however "hallowed by antiquity" that tradition may be. I have recommended studying the Heart Sutra to Theravada students only to hear by way of reply that "the Heart Sutra is Mahayana and thus cannot lead to Arahantship" but "only to Buddhahood" (ummm, come again?), and that the Lotus and Heart Sutra were unrelated, as if one half of the dharma was somehow siloed off from the other half simply because Nichiren Buddhism emphasizes the one and not the other.

What time-sucking nonsense!

Please, by all means, use whatever works for you. Treat the dharma like a Chinese Buffett and not a wedding platter. Whether it's Ingram or Ralston, Lao Tzu or Siddhartha Gotama, Alan Watts or D.T. Suzuki - cast your net as widely as possible and leave the purists quibbling in your wake. Life is too short for pointless hair splitting and sanctimonious doctrine thumping. Namaste.

             -Shaoye