@tantek, @frivoal, and I discussed some of the ambiguities in the Process around what happens when we follow the "adopt with substantive changes" track in https://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/Drafts/#ACReviewAfter and how to fix them. We think three changes are necessary (two to Process, one to Guide):

1. Objections that block consensus of substantive changes during the consensus check, like those during the AC Review itself, get registered as Formal Objections.
2. These Formal Objections get batch processed with the FOs from the AC Review.
3. The consensus check on the revised document should use the same question structure as the AC Review itself, to ensure clarity on the responses; and ideally the same system (currently WBS).

Note that prior to Process 2023, consensus was defined as the lack of a Formal Objection. We revised this definition for various reasons in Process 2023, and I don't think we should revert; but the ability to block consensus without actually registering an FO leaves these cases in a weird limbo and makes it hard for a Council to properly address the W3C Decision at hand.