The naturalistic fallacy

The naturalistic fallacy is a famous one, and many pens have already been written about it.
I just wanted to clarify: in light of your conscious perception of the synthetic (and not just the analytical thinker), is the fallacy still truly completely stable, and has not changed in any way? Is the derivation of values ​​not drawn as a result of a realistic fact?
Perhaps it would be more accurate to phrase it this way: when there is a realistic fact before us, then some moral idea also rests on it, and as a result, the moral judgment is derived. Did I understand your method correctly?
Thanks for everything!