Oh, absolutely. I don't doubt that. Though there was a subtle change to the meaning of the switches. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boe

Oh, absolutely. I don't doubt that. Though there was a subtle change to the meaning of the switches. https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boeing-altered-key-switches-in-737-max-cockpit-limiting-ability-to-shut-off-mcas/ https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/boein... In their eagerness to match the procedure, they actually lost a level of granularity in system isolation. The infamous "electrical short" misunderstanding, I think, may have risen from system description that supported the change. The idea being a short in the yoke switches could cause a runaway, which is what the left switch in the NG is for isolating, and the right switch was for isolating the Autopilot. In MAX, this distinction was lost. Either switch completely isolated both Autopilot and yoke switches. Assumedly, if one was very studious and aware of the switches purpose in the NG, one could get taken by surprise flying the MAX if they expected them to work the same way. This is why I tend to beat into my devs the importance of "if you change the interface, you explain the change, or you offer the ability to fall back to older behavior. I realize that's not practical in aerospace's regulatory environment, but it is nevertheless a helpful guide.