I've done some tests on this, and also looked at the tables more closely.
Interestingly, the only table in which there's a significant discrepancy in fuel flows between the normally aspirated (NA) and the turbonormalized (TN) variant (at altitudes where the NA variant can still achieve the same MAP as the TN variant) is the 55% power table.
For example, at 6,000 feet, 55% power, the fuel flow for the NA variant is 56 PPH, whereas the fuel flow for the TN variant is 70 PPH.
At 65% power, on the other hand, the fuel flow given for both variants is exactly the same: 87 PPH.
I did some testing in the sim. It looks to me as if, in the 55% power table, the fuel flow for the NA variant corresponds to a 100 LOP lean, whereas the fuel flow for the TN variant corresponds to a 50 ROP lean.
The fuel flow in the 65% power table (which, as noted is the same for both variants) seems to correspond to a 50 ROP lean.
So there does seem to be a difference in leaning strategies, but only for the 55% power table, where the NA variant uses LOP, whereas everything else seems to be ROP.