Overly specific interpretation of terms

Imagine the following conversation:

A: Please don't change the rules every four weeks!
B: We don't change the rules every four weeks!
A: You changed it twice in the last two months, how do you call that?
B: But one of those was after 3 weeks and the other after 5 - so see, not every four weeks!

Or in a similar tone:

A: Do you admit that nobody ever looks at the feedback you receive (via the feedback form)?
B: That's not true, we look at the feedback.
A: But I can see that feedback I've submitted weeks ago has not been acted on.
B: We don't act on the feedback, but we have someone who looks at it.

This may sound like a parody but actually paraphrases some discussions I had with a certain colleague.

I'm not sure if that actually qualifies as a fallacy or if it is just an unfair rhetoric tactic - but there are some aspects of "nit-picking" here and it's definitely some attempt to derail a discussion, i.e. a "red hering" of some sorts.

Any other ideas how to classify this?

I can see two possibilities here: 1) the person responding is being somewhat ironic because the first person is exaggerating or not being accurate in their communication or 2) the person responding is being serious—which probably means they are on the autism spectrum, don't speak English that well, or just really bad at detecting exaggeration. In either case, this is problem of communication rather than reason. I see no fallacy.