As #9 MCAS was required to meet stick force requirements; it was not directly related to the stalling characteristics. The comments about stalling could relate to acceptability if MCAS had been inhibited; thence a comparison with the NG stall, a certification consideration for the failure case.
MCAS was also driven by the Boeing focus of type commonality, minimum differences training; thus a stick force tweak to achieve a 'NG like' feel (#10).
FBW might not have resolved the issue(#4). Electrical signalling was not required; the associated computation and sensor redundancy could not be justified - why not add third AoA to the existing 'mechanical' system.
Also, the Boeing FBW philosophy of keeping the pilot in the loop - stick force feel - negates the auto trim follow up. The C*U algorithm is based on trim for speed, which would not provide an additional stick force change to rectify the deficiency in manual flight. Hence the need for separate computation to drive the trim directly - MCAS.