By 4 paths I assume you are referring to the bullet points in law 12 under “Handling the ball”.
I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit here but all four paths? Really?
#1 deliberately touches the ball with their hands/arm - as a consequence of being held, the handling of the ball is due to players not being in the place she expected to be with a free, unhindered passage.
#2 touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand /arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the players body movement for that specific situation - her arms make her unnaturally bigger but their position is justified by the prior holding off a specific situation.
#3 scores directly in the opponent’s goal - directly from their arm/hand. That didn’t happen. The ball was heading closer to the corner flag than the goal.
#4 scores directly in the opponent’s goal - immediately after the ball had touched their arm/hand, even if accidental. She never had control of the ball and no other Spurs player is nearby. (Apologies, there a single Spurs player with a possibility of playing the ball) After contact, the ball is played twice by City players.
You can’t use 3 or 4 to justify handling the ball is an offence here. 1 and 2 are certainly true if you ignore the holding offence but, arguable if you don’t.
My general point on VAR is that they should see the holding and as that is the first offence, a penalty should be awarded with suitable disciplinary action.
Or should it be the usual to hell with the laws, I’ll do what football expects?