Yes, ofc but this is a special case which possibly wasn't considered when writing the rules and to me it would seem that the important thing is whether the terminal state remains after a save is triggered rather than the specific question of what part of triggering the save removed the state. We could even imagine a future card that gives +STR to kneeling characters and then you could have a situation where you could kneel Maester Aemon to save himself from burn if you allow the terminal state to be removed by costs also.
Given the wording in the RR it's clear what the ruling is but that doesn't mean it's the most intuitive ruling.
Given the new distinction between save "attempts" and save "effects," provided this was an ongoing effect, my reading is it would be permissible, just like blanking Sadsa or adding power to 7Cat.
I don't think anybody but Nate knows what's within the 4 corners of a save "attempt," so who knows. My best guess is the totality of the save effect, considered in conjunction with lasting effects (and probably forced reactions/interrupts) on the table, but ignoring player-triggered reactions or interrupts.
With that in mind, It's not clear to me why a cost (in this case, Jory sacrificing himself) wouldn't be a part of the save attempt, although it's surely not a part of the save effect. Nate's communications with me made it pretty clear the save effect had to be sufficient to remedy the ongoing communication, but his new ruling broadened it to save attempt, which... well, as I said, who knows.