Maybe a committee could include a brief summary of pro and con arguments, sort of a miniature version of the legal practice of consenting and dissenting opinion

Maybe a committee could include a brief summary of pro and con arguments, sort of a miniature version of the legal practice of consenting and dissenting opinions. On the other hand, I could understand why some organizations would be afraid to do this. They don't want to write down anything that could look bad in the future as part of a legal discovery. In that case, there's an incentive to promote institutional amnesia.