I sure wouldn't say Holacracy uses "consent" as a model.  The only place I see Holacracy using what I would call "consent" is in the relationship contract between the human and the organization (i.e. the employment contract and any basic behavioral agreements that go with it, or the equivalent): in defining that relationship, both sides must consent to the relationship.  Once in that relationship however, the governance process of the organization itself uses a different standard/threshold, and calling that one "consent" seems likely misleading to most, as the person is not asked to consent or not as a person, and nor does "no objection" mean "I agree" or imply the person's consent - they simply aren't given a personal voice at all, no more than I am in my neighbor's decisions of how to run their household, so their consent is irrelevant.  And there are plenty of governance changes I've seen where I see no objections, but definitely wouldn't say "I agree" to anything.  All that to say: Holacracy does use/require consent in one way (relationship definition), but not in governance decision-making; thinking of that as consent-based seems like a mental model that's likely to lead to misunderstanding of Holacracy and perhaps working against the paradigm it's actually going for.