In a statement, the Boeing spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, “Safety is a core value for everyone at Boeing.” The company, he added, “is committed to working with the F.A.A. in reviewing the recommendations and helping to continuously improve the process and approach used to validate and certify airplanes going forward.”

The Joint Authorities Technical Review, which produced the report, was led by Chris Hart, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, and included aviation regulators from Europe, China, Brazil and other countries. To conduct the review, Mr. Hart and his team were briefed by F.A.A. officials and Boeing executives, and they scrutinized extensive documentation on the certification of the Max.

A broad theme of the report is that the F.A.A. was too focused on the specifics of the new system and did not put sufficient effort into understanding its overall impact on the plane. In certification documents that Boeing submitted to the F.A.A., MCAS was not evaluated as “a complete and integrated function.”

The report also said Boeing had failed to inform the F.A.A. as the design of MCAS changed during the plane’s development. A New York Times investigation revealed that the system changed significantly during that process, making MCAS riskier and more powerful, and that key F.A.A. officials in charge of reviewing it were inexperienced or unaware of the overhaul.

The task force said the certification documents that Boeing had provided to the F.A.A. “were not updated during the certification program to reflect the changes” made to MCAS. It added that two critical documents that describe the potential dangers of a system like MCAS, the system safety assessment and the functional hazard assessment, “were not consistently updated.”

Boeing also failed to thoroughly stress-test the design of MCAS, according to the report, which found that “the design assumptions were not adequately reviewed, updated or validated.”