The existence of two juristic positions does not automatically make every third position impermissible, nor does it automatically permit every new one. Composite consensus asks whether the disputants nevertheless agreed on a common constraint that a proposed third view would violate.
If both positions share a particular conclusion, the permissibility of a new proposal depends on the actual nature and strength of that shared agreement. Merely counting positions does not decide the question.
Diagnosis: “There were two views, therefore a third is impossible” is inadequate. Correction: Identify the common point of agreement and demonstrate how the proposed view relates to it.