NOS verses DIN is and interesting comparison since both use the same angle between mics, with NOS just spacing the mics a bit farther apart. It spreads out the monophonic center more a bit more than DIN on playback. At the same time, the ambient reverberant pickup is a bit less correlated with NOS do to the slightly wider spacing. In some cases the center can get weak, and that subjective effect may be increased by the ambient verb being a bit wider and 'more stereoized'.
I suspect those things are behind the preferences for using it closer to the stage indoors. The stronger direct sound keeps the center solid and the closer location keeps the room verb from becoming over-emphasized. DIN is a bit more focused and monoish and may work better farther back in the room. Alternately, it may work even better to keep the NOS spacing and angle the mics a bit less when farther- the mics will then be more on-axis with the PA (moving closer to PAS), and the ambient verb remains more open and a bit less correlated due to the wider than DIN spacing.
For the same reasons, NOS may be a good choice from farther back outdoors. At a greater distance the direct sound will be more monoized (in Stereo Zoom terms the orchestra angle becomes narrower) since the inclusive angle of stage and PA becomes narrower as the recording position is moved farther back. So the more spread center of NOS helps widen the stage on playback. At the same time the wider spacing of the mics makes the ambient reverberant sound more open and 'stereoized', which is welcome and not a problem like it could be indoors since it's level is lower outdoors and it's probably less problematic than the room verb of many interior performance spaces.
The preference for NOS close indoors is a good example of how there is more going on than what is addressed by the Stereo Zoom. Otherwise, based on Stereo Zoom alone, people would generally prefer DIN closer and NOS further back, which actually may be the case outdoors, but doesn't seem to be the case indoors.