Thanks for the link, I hadn’t seen that thread.
I think the concept that a dissenting committee member must explain their justification is generally a good feature.
However, I do think it might be more transparent and easier on the committee members and delegates if the committee recommendation comes with (i) case for, (ii) case against, (iii) committee majority recommendation, and (iv) disclosure of committee members that vote contrary to the majority.
If cases for and against are both presented and dissenting committee members disclose their dissent, I don’t personally think that a separate rundown or explanation of that delegates specific reasons for dissent need to be called out as justifications should be adequately represented in the case for and case against framework. It’s nuanced, but to me that still feels like a more united committee communication vs a dissenting voter being required to break from the group and write a separate thread.