Hi Konrad, my thought on these issues :
> is "more" in an accountability an NVGO?
I would interpret it as what Brian calls "bad governance" rather than "unvalid governance", if it describes an ongoing activity, starting with a "-ing" verb. Giving the piece of coaching that you gave, because it seems in your case that they may have a misunderstanding of what can be expected from an accountability.
> why we ask the Proposer about Objection on his own Proposal?
I have the same interrogation, and by now the same answer that you wrotte.
> can we have 2 same accountabilities on different Roles ?
For me yes. There is no rule that says the opposite. And for example, if in a "social media wizard" role I want to ask contents from 2 or 3 differents roles in the circle on a regular basis , I could find useful to add te same accountability to those different roles. There is no notion of exclusive control in an accountability, unlike in a domain.
> helping with crafting the Proposal by Facilitator
I suggest to do so using the process as much as you can : using clarifying questions and reaction round, as all members, it's possible to show possible pathway to the Proposer (for example expressing that "hearing the tension that has been exposed, and the answers to the clarifying questions, adding a domain (...) to the role (...) could bring (...)"). Without any pressure on the Proposer (avoiding "you should" maybe), trusting that you can use the objection round if you detect an NVGO. And as a complement, I use times out.
With a beginners group, I would take care of this "sharing inputs without pressuring" stance. Respecting the Proposer's sovereignty, even if its solution doesn't seems very good to me even after giving him some suitable coaching , if it's safe enough to try (and if it's not in my opinion, it seems I have an objection)
I wish you good luck for the assessment !