Not every silence is explicit consensus, and not every reported disagreement automatically destroys a claim about agreement on a narrower issue. The roles of express statement, silence, circulation, and juristic qualification must be assessed separately.
If one scholar speaks and another remains silent in a meeting, that alone does not establish universal consensus. One must examine who remained silent, whether they knew of the statement, and whether that silence has the legally required significance.
Conclusion: A claim of ijmāʿ needs evidence of its formation, not merely a proposed legal result.