Possibly. I'm going to go with something that is not LM as an example.
I've read Brideshead Revisted three times (one of my interests is historical queer fiction, whether it is historical because it is period or if it is modern but set in a historical period). First time, it was patently obvious to me that Charles and Sebastian were in a romantic relationship that continued through Charles entire life even though they were no longer together. Second time, looking for evidence I had been wrong the first time (since Charles later ends up in a heterosexual relationship outside of his marriage), I became convinced that Sebastian was merely a precursor to that het relationship and the characterisation of "romantic friendship" one of the characters in the book gives was correct. This re-read coincided with the release of the new film version that gives more prominence to the het relationship - I was trying to figure out if we read the same book (and I was still trying to figure out if we read the same book and who I have to blame because I adore Andrew Davies' 19th century lit adaptations but this was just rubbish). Third time? I am now absolutely convinced that Charles and Sebastian had a sexual relationship, not merely a romantic one. This last time, however, was a re-read so that I could write Charles/Sebastian relationship fic for someone who requested it, though what really convinced me was a reference later in the novel that doesn't apply to anything directly said earlier in the novel and can make sense only if the scene in which it appears later is directly analogous to a scene that should but does not appear earlier in the novel. (wow, this is starting to get confusing without spoilers: basically, I think Waugh wrote around the gay more than he wrote the gay, and on this reading, I think I found textual evidence of that fact in a way that absolutely convinced me that Charles and Sebastian had sex at least once, whereas before this reading, I was certain that the relationship reached to making out only in terms of physical expression.)
So in the case of Brideshead, I come to a different conclusion about Waugh's work each time I read it because I bring a different lens to each reading. Most works aren't quite that coy about their central relationships - I still can't make Brideshead work entirely with how Waugh ordinarily felt and wrote about gay people.
But the lens you bring to something is also a product of everything you know. So, back to LM, the description of Javert's early career and current position with the police made me stop and go "Wait, what?" because I had been doing background reading in the French policing system (awesome book called Police Stories: Building the French State, 1815-1851, by John Merriman) and things weren't lining up as I had expected. Because I had one set of information that a lot of people didn't, I had to be careful to say "this looks off to me because Merriman, in his book, says such and such". I was viewing that section of Hugo's work from a different lens as other people on this board because I had different information. Career looked thoroughly OK to people, but not to me, because of that extra information.
So back to this thread - someone who deals in autism spectrum disorders on a daily basis is bringing a different lens to the work. Possibly looking for clues (as we tend to do with slash), possibly having a completely different set of background information than the rest of the group so that something jumps out at said person that the rest of the group doesn't understand.
In both cases, it looks less "off" or out of nowhere or wishful thinking if evidence, both from the novel and outside it, is brought to bear. It's merely a matter of explaining your reasoning, showing what lens you are viewing the text from, because many lenses can easily be shared so long as everyone can figure out just what it is that you are doing.
What kind of literature and what kind of life is the same question. - Tom Stoppard