[mannykannot]

>> That, of course, immediately raises the question of why, then, this was not done.

> Which I raised in the antecedent post.

You did, in the sense that you wrote "I've never seen an explanation for why this mistake was made." That does not mean it is somehow wrong for me to also make that point as a prelude to continuing that line of thought.

> I did not write that Boeing "did not have to" have dual sensor input...

And I did not say that you did. I pointed out that this would not be a full answer to the question that both of us raised.

> ...in my not-so-humble opinion additional simulator training would have been entirely unnecessary.

I very much doubt that Boeing was at all concerned about what you or I think. It is rather more plausible that it was concerned about what the FAA might think, especially if the FAA also understood the extent to which MCAS's power had been increased.

And nothing else you have written here has any bearing on the possible motives behind Boeing making a decision that you yourself call a mistake - one which was made before these incidents.