If you're trying to interpret that yourself as Facilitator either way, you're already doing something wrong - it's not the Facilitator's job to interpret and assess whether objections are valid or not, and you don't have the authority to do so anyway. It's just the Facilitator's job to ask questions and get the objector to assess and tell you whether it's valid or not (we spend a lot of time on this in our Practitioner Trainings - it's a key nuance that's often missed and can undermine the whole practice). So in this case, I'd first take a short time-out to explain to the objector that they would still have the full authority to do anything to serve their role's purpose, including doing that accountability whether or not it's explicit, and all removing an accountability does is stop others from necessarily expecting that the role-filler will do that particular thing, without in any way limiting the role-filler from doing so if they think it makes sense for the purpose. Then, I'd end the time out and simply ask, "Now that you know that, do you see any reasons why dropping that as an expectation, while still leaving you free to choose to do it or not as you see fit, will cause harm?". And if they say yes, I'd ask for the reason - i.e. for the argument to that specific question; tell me how it will cause harm even knowing they could still do it. And then I might run whatever argument they give through the other test questions. If they answer them all with a reason for the specific question asked, it's valid by definition; I never have to assess validity myself.