No what you see down the chain of comments are people confidently repeating the exact pattern that the OIG report on this failure actually blames for it.

They keep insisting there's some binary distinction between type certification and production certification. The entire crux of OIG's diagnosis is that this is actually a much more permeable and fluid process, and the permeability of it is exactly what allowed a faulty MCAS design to make it to production.

You would probably have gotten a better response by explaining this before posting vague, dismissive comments around the subject. If your post in response to the first question was the one that's like 6 responses deep in the argument here it would have been a pretty good contribution to the discussion.