Yes it is, it either means that the elevator doesn't have enough authority to recover in the stall due to aerodynamic effects eg super stall.
I bow before your aircraft certification expertise! You must have a lot of experience to make such a decisive statement. Maybe they did just design an aircraft with dangerous handling, despite years of experience building aerobatic military training aircraft.
But, just maybe, they thought that a stick pusher would be the best way to keep pilots and passengers safe in the PC12? Maybe they took deliberate design decisions, like giving it a T tail so that it's easier to drive up to the cargo door, because they were using technology to avoid any risk of a deep stall? Maybe they thought it would be pointless to fly the full spin test matrix (hundreds of spins in different configurations of CG, fuel balance, flap settings, power settings, etc.) in an aircraft the size and weight of a PC12, risking their test pilots' lives, when the risk of spinning could be eliminated with a stick pusher? And the accident record would seem to suggest that they didn't do a bad job.
The certification authorities have allowed a compromise in the need for spin recovery testing by making a serviceable BRS a requirement.
Just as they have allowed a compromise in the need for stall / spin avoidance in a PC12 by making a serviceable stick pusher a requirement. Pretty much every other single engine aircraft has had to do hundreds of stalls and spins; the pusher allows a PC12 to demonstrate an equivalent level of safety by using technology - exactly the same idea as a Cirrus with BRS.