A collective agent needs a coherent but revisable procedure for forming judgments and actions; neither member unanimity nor static identity is required.

A collective can form a judgment or act coherently despite persistent disagreement when an explicit procedure determines which inputs matter, who is authorized to decide, what result becomes operative, and how dissent is retained. The procedure may use delegated authority, standing rules, voting, markets, deliberation, or another accountable mechanism; the proposition does not select among them. It must be stable enough to make action attributable and revisable enough to incorporate evidence, correct failure, or change legitimate authority. This claim assumes participants can recognize the operative procedure and that its outputs can be distinguished from shared knowledge and member positions. It does not imply that any coherent procedure is legitimate, that coherence requires consensus, or that one decision should erase disagreement. Architecturally, it requires separate records for canonical claims, attributed positions, authorized collective decisions, runtime permissions, dissent, review triggers, and supersession.