Yes. Certainly it’s possible that Chu Fonian (Ven Dharmanandi?) believed 菩薩摩訶薩/púsà móhēsà was simply how one translates “bodhisattva” into Chinese and some of these are false positives for “proto-Mahāyāna features,” if I read what I think you say.
A more or less “bodhisattva-ised” adapted canon of “bodhisattva” EBTS, a canon of EBTs translated and explained from a Mahāyānika exegetical perspective through regular nested commentarial additions or interpolations, would be very interesting to read. It is very plausible one would have existed, given the way innovative bodhisattva scriptures develop themselves. Very interesting.
I think there are elderly Prākrit attestations of this reading to. Occam’s razor seems to suggest this to me at least this could be an earlier reading and the daśabhūmika exegetical tradition would be scholastic mid-Mahāyāna path mysticism. I believe Jan Nattier has a talk in which she theorizes there were originally only two bodhisattva stages, retrogradeable and non-retrogradeable. I will try to find the link to the lecture in a second.