I am not convinced your use case qualifies as indirect recursion since the action in the AFTER trigger does not cause the INSTEAD trigger to fire. If it did, and that inturn caused the AFTER trigger to fire again I still do not think it would qualify an indirect. Here is why.
Actually, the case I described seems not to involve *any* recursion, according to the definition in the docs, since "sameness" in the context of recursion refers to triggers - not tables - and there's no reason either of the triggers in question would trigger more than once.