[@mention:456308404254624012] I like all of those options. If the goal is to encourage objections (and I think it should be), then all of those work towards that purpose. Though, I hope the facilitator would also help the objector understand the criteria as appropriate. Meaning, I don't think you need to avoid the language of "valid" and "invalid," as long as overall, your stance on objections is encouraging. But all things being equal, if it's purely about the phrasing, then those options seem fine to me.
[@mention:449693036223847456] I like the strategic use of the words like "let's..." and "we..." in this context because a) it's perfectly true that the outputs are always group outputs; b) it quarantines the misunderstanding/struggle people have between working together and autocratically deciding something, so that the language isn't distracting from the actual goal (which again, is to encourage objections).
I know that there is a difference between "not a valid objection" (i.e. unspecified) and an "invalid objection," but the distinction is too nuanced in the context. Either way, people interpret it as a judgment of validity, since they are looking for agreement. It's the same as if my fiance asked me, "Do I look fat in this?" and I said, "Unspecified."
Overall, if objections are encouraged, then when it comes to testing them, I've found I usually don't have a problem telling an objector very clearly, "that isn't a valid argument," (or something that otherwise seems much more judgemental), because overall they feel curious and supported by the process as a whole.
What's coming to mind is Gregory Bateson's argument that communication always includes two levels; 1) the content level and the 2) relationship level. It's like a wife asking her tardy husband, "Do you know what time it is!?" She isn't communicating her own lack of knowledge about the time (i.e. content), she is clearly communicating her disapproval of his behavior (i.e. relationship).