It may, then why not be up front?
What are the results of the wing test?
I think the proposed solution is that both existing vanes will be used simultaneously rather than consecutively to provide a dual channel input to to the system which requires only a software change. Adding a third vane to existing aircraft is a whole different ball game and will delay things even further.
Even with three AoA inputs and polling software, there is no guarantee that MCAS would be sensor error free. Depending on where this extra vane is located, there are still certain situations such as uncoordinated flight, where all three vanes are outputting a different value to the FCC.
So following your logic, under common maneuvers such as a climbing turn, isnt one of the AoA shielded?
So with using 2 you are relying on the various algorithms applied to each to compare variables such as crosswinds, climbing/descending turns, vertical winds, and high AoA maneuvers to compare the 2 AoA readings, then another algorithm to report which one is valid?