Hi,
not exactly. I'll explain it again chronologically.
1) a new RPi 4 (not sure what is the name of the OS but it was the one recommended by RPi at the time) was setup as per instructions.
2) 3 MCC boards were mounted and installed (MCC 152 on address 0, MCC 152 on address 1, MCC 118 on address 2). all jumpers and OS configurations as you wrote. The setup worked perfectly well for more than a year both with the manager app and with my scripts.
3) one day (this last Monday) it simply didn't work anymore. it didn't work in the way I explained in the original question i.e. "board not responding" (both of the MCC 152 on address 0 and 1, the MCC 118 continued to work).
4) The only thing that happened between the last time it worked and this Monday was the weekend during which the pi was turned off. I usually turn the pi off over the weekend. so the boards were not moved or removed or flexed. I only started manipulating them after the "not responding" error.
5) as part of troubleshooting I unmounted all three boards and mounted back only the first one (mcc 152 address 0) - it didn't work.
6) I tried it on another RPi - it didn't work.
7) I tried it again on both pi's after disconnecting all the wires. - didn't work.
8) NEW UPDATE: took one other mcc 152 scavenged from another system and connected it to my RPi 4 in the original setup (without any jumper in address 0) - this works perfectly well. next step, I took the second mcc 152 (the one that was before in address 1) and mounted it on top of the "new" mcc 152. now both of them work. I continued and mounted the mcc 118 in address 2 (as before) and it also works (as it did before).
9) my (strange) conclusion is: for whatever hardware-related reason, the mcc 152 in address 0 failed. it was identified and the EEPROM can be read but it could not respond (could not be opened in the manager app). This caused the second mcc 152 in address 1 to also not respond in the same exact way, although it is not damaged. ones I put in the same address but with a "new" mcc 152 below it, both respond. Even stranger - this problem didn't affect the mcc 118 in address 2.
does this make any sense?