[@mention:564684143600201011] Glad to hear it's helpful! )
1. Accountabilities with getting input from other roles: e.g. "Doing X while getting input from Y." Yep, it's kinda tricky. So, 1) it's usually just fine because there are obvious cases where some role needs to be expected to get input from another role. At least that's better than, "Coordinating with..." or "Collaborating with..." At least, "get input from," is more specific.
However....2) It can easily be confusing to people because when you have accountabilities like this people may assume, "Oh, if I don't have an accountability like this, that means I don't need to gather input." But that's not true. Without an accountability, the role-filler isn't expected to seek input, but it's completely unspecified whether or not the role-filler should seek input. Meaning, there are lots of things in life we aren't expected to do but are still a good idea for me to do. So, this can convey and perpetuate a misunderstanding that one needs to document everything they do in an accountability.
To handle this, use clarifying questions (if this presents itself in the original proposal). Questions like, "What's the tension?" can help you understand whether the proposal is predictive (i.e. the proposer likely misunderstands how accountabilities work...though it's still possible it makes sense to be predictive) or adaptive (i.e. they can describe a real situation in which the role-filler didn't seek input and it created a tension for them; e.g. "Can you describe a current or past situation that would have been solved if you had this accountability on the role?")
2. Cutting off during reaction round. Ha! I love these questions! So, yeah if it felt organic in the moment then probably fine. I handle situations like this the same way I handle some tactical items. I do what I call "pace," meaning I start nodding along as they are talking...start making subtle little sounds like "hmms..." and "ummm..." and if that alone doesn't work, I'll just roll right into a prompt/question like, "Great; any more reaction? Take all the time you need..."
I find the little sounds or body language to be really helpful. It seems to happen when people are new to the process because the lack of feedback is so jarring. It's a natural human thing, so the intervention is really an attempt to subtlely support their learning of the process, while also moving things along.
3. NVGO Objection by Facilitator, should it be first? Of course, it's a rule-of-thumb, not a constitutional rule, but integrating NVGO should be prioritized before other objections (you can read more about integrating NVGO here).
Having the facilitator go last as a rule-of-thumb....hmmmm...to be honest, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I mean, my guess is because the facilitator usually asks himself/herself last during testing, that any objection they raise would be further down the list of charted objections, but that sequence doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the sequence of objections to integrate (other than maybe reducing perceived complication). And if the objection is truly coming from the facilitator role and not another role they hold in the circle, then NVGO is the only likely objection they'll have. So, I guess that is why my intuition went a little nutty when I think about "facilitator goes last" as a rule. What other kinds of objections have been raised by a facilitator? Just curious.
But regardless of that, I want to respond to the justification of having the facilitator go last to "maximize learning." I don't disagree that as a facilitator there are places to hold back and let participants work things out for themselves because it's more efficient for the process and for the learning. BUT, there are also places where holding back actually works against those two goals. Sometimes getting involved and being proactive is more appropriate and is better for the learning because you're role-modeling good Holacracy practice. Integration is one of those places.
4. Keeping the full question in the Objection round? You don't need the full question, and while it's kinda personal preference, it's also situation specific. For large groups, I may ask a longer version at first but switch to "Objection or no objection?" for the rest.
And the primary focus should be on the word "any..." as in, "Do you see any reason (at all)?" The words "harm" and "move backward" are actually a part of criteria #1, so use either one at your discretion. This also means that you could technically solicit objections by asking, "Does this proposal impact any of your roles (criteria #3); objection or no objection? " or "Does this proposal create a new issue (criteria #2); objection or no objection?" My point is that there are a lot of words you could emphasize. I suggest emphasizing "please bring up any possible issue" regardless of the specific words you use (e.g."Would you like to try an objection?" or "Do you feel any tension about the proposal?").
I'll just add that for me, I want as many objections as I can get. It truly doesn't matter if they are invalid, so there is no reason why I would want people to pre-filter their objections. That is what testing is for. So, I advise against making the solicitation question needlessly complicated or wordy. Of course, the goal isn't to trick people into raising invalid objections. I just want to make sure the proper orientation/context is set, which is: it's not up to the objector to figure all of this out in their own head.