There’s a little bit of useful analysis here but both of these views of consensus are contrived…
Chris Woodward

“One possible change to the protocol, which is not immutable, does not make a separate change any more or less difficult. A contentious one only helps to provide evidence that the system is or is not robust against such changes. A non contentious one can still go ahead at a later time. If a contentious one does cause a split then it provides evidence that the system is not robust against attacks and therfore more risky and so less valuable.”

By this logic, we should welcome a contentious hard fork, as it would provide us with valuable knowledge on the nature of Bitcoin to guide our future actions.

If Bitcoin handles it gracefully, then it gives us evidence that it is robust and worthy of putting our time, energy and money into.

If it does not, it shows Bitcoin is not worthy of our interest and we can stop wasting our time with it.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.