Knowledge for all involved observers.

​

As for the second point, if the agreement is global (ie every single observer agrees), you wouldn't still give it a pass as "objective"? I would think (perhaps based entirely upon faith/intuition) if such a configuration was achieved, then that would be as "objective" as it gets.

An alternative idea I've thought about is that the observers that changed their view after the discussion period in the thought experiment now disagree with their former view, although, it is possible that they gained new insight in the discussion period and so then the "knowledge" of the observer before and after might not be identical. Although, if we've assumed complete knowledge even before the discussion period, then the most the discussion period can do is change the logical reasoning of the observers, not the knowledge of the observers, in which case, I would argue that the fact the observers disagree with their former viewpoint given identical knowledge would basically be equivalent to the other case where there is disagreement (it's just that the disagreement now is with the former self).