MCAS is different, and was developed to accomodate the new powerplants, and their re orientation on the airframe.
Further forward, lifted, and contributing to 14% improvement in SFC.
Some would claim this was a challenge to all sorts of previously certified characteristics (sic). Handling changed, controls response changed, and required a new protection against NU getting too aggressive.
Data was kept from pilots Boeing considered “average”. Too sophisticated to clue in the operator? Interesting? Because in Boeing’s response, it was claimed “new research” uncovered the problem, that is ridiculous.
FAA reserved the right to “augment” the AD at a later date. I will repeat my comment re the CofA. If handling is markedly different sufficient to add a new trimming feature, should the certification be amended? Boeing obviously thought it was subtle enough to not mention in the FCOM. If the handling is different, to what degree should it remain ignored? (Purposely ignored, and not acknowledged to the operators.)