Citation needed. No indication of that at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuvering_Characteristics_Au... and a quick Google turns up no suggestion that it's true.
Note the section "In flight test, MCAS changes"
I've posted the link in my other comment too.
The initial introduction of MCAS was motivated by "type rating" issues. The later changes were the real safety issues. The later were activated during the crashes.
But the certification rules for type rating are also there to provide safety, and not some crazy bureaucracy decision. It was designed to prevent the pilots flying the planes for which they aren't trained. Boeing just lied about what MAX is as it was selling it and as it preformed the certification.
So the narration that implies the plane was "inherently" safe is just wrong. It could have been in completely useless purely technical terms "stable" (as ryanlol in the other comment writes that that apparently technically means only "longitudinal static stability") but that is just a red herring in the whole context.
Not for nothing, how is this dismissal of terms helping forward understanding? This is in part a technical discussion with intelligent individuals. If avionics takes ‘stable’ to have a special meaning, then denying the term’s special meaning undermines credibility of those who are working so hard to hold Boeing to account.