gums
' I do not think the MCAS does anything close to what the LEX configurations did for the fighters since the 70's. Nor was it intended to do so.'
'LEX' similarity was used to describe the problem; an anticipated outcome of the design, but which warranted a 'military style' solution.
In previous 737 variants the aerodynamic changes were managed with simple speed and Mach corrections (STS, Mach trim).
However, the Max engine / nacelles resulted in aerodynamic effects (similar to LEX) which required mitigation involving several parameters; - speed, Mach, and AoA, where the combination, and apparent non-linearity warranted high integrity computation, detailed system assessment, and validated assumptions.
Boeing chose to use single sensor, single path computation, and simplified certification; - hindsight defines history, and that which must be learnt.
The Tech Log plea is noted; however the subject is part of a complex system of aerodynamics, design, engineering, certification, communication, etc. If individual aspects are discussed in isolation, influencing interconnections could be overlooked.
In this area, dual monitored AoA as part of the modification to inhibit the effects of failures might be easy to understand and certificate. However, the additional computation which can apparently identify the better AoA input of a 'failed' dual input is harder to understand without more detailed description ("valid erroneous" data - 6.1.3). Such computation might not be not perfect, but good enough; all of this requires further technical explanation, test results, proof of concept, and certification acceptability.
Yes LEX chines interact with directional stab; some early Russian aircraft changed nose cones until they found one that did not depart - slice (SETP conference - SU 27 briefing, question re 'cobra' manoeuvre for airshows), nowadays FBW is much better.