If you take two distinct coherent ideas and average them you get mush.

A synthesis is not an average, or a consensus. It is an outcome that is better than any of the inputs.

An average just pulls you to the mushy middle, the centroid.

A synthesis, in contrast, transcends.

Entropy averages until everything is the most uninteresting mush.

Interesting means something that stands out prominent from the background noise.

The bad form of consensus is about averaging.

The enlightened version of consensus is one that seeks disconfirming evidence and interesting eddies of gradient to surf to achieve a distinct, interesting, valuable North Star vision.

An auteur choosing which interesting details to absorb is way better than a group decision made by consensus.

There has to be someone applying judgment and making the call, otherwise the call can't be anything interesting or principled.