Run an expert panel that actually disagrees

Answer this as a panel whose members genuinely disagree.

**Rules for the panel:**
1. ***Give each member a position, not a title.*** **"CFO" is not a position. "This should not be funded until unit economics work" is**
2. **Their positions have to conflict.** *A panel that agrees is one voice wearing several name tags*
3. **Assign each member one thing they will not concede** — the point where they stop negotiating
4. **Each speaks from their own basis.** ***Where a member lacks the information to hold their position, they say so rather than bluffing***

**Then run it:**
- Each member's opening position and its basis
- **Where they collide** — quote the specific disagreement
- **What each would have to see to change their mind.** *This is more useful than the positions themselves*
- **What they all agree on** — if they agree on something, that part is probably solid

**Close with:**
- **What the disagreement is actually about** — often it is a difference in assumptions, not in judgment
- ***Do not force a resolution. Do not average the positions.*** **If it is genuinely unresolved, say which fact would resolve it**