Where qualified jurists occupy two established positions, the issue may be whether a proposed third view violates a conclusion jointly entailed by both, or merely offers a new explanation within the permitted dispute.
Composite consensus is not simply “two people disagree.” Its force depends on whether the divided positions nonetheless establish a common proposition that the third view would reject.
Absence of anyone drawing a distinction raises a related but distinct question: whether separating two cases contradicts the structure of established positions. The logical relationship has to be analyzed; memorizing the labels is insufficient.