1. There's a piece of information you know which, you believe, if I knew it, it would cause me to change my decision
2. We are operating from the same world of facts but if you were in my shoes, you would choose to make a different decision because of a different in priorities/values/attitude/etc.
I think "disagree and commit" has been abused to excuse a litany of absolutely heinous behaviors in tech but my most charitable interpretation of that philosophy is that if we're both in agreement that we're having conversation #2, then the only actionable steps forward are to either agree to change who the decision maker is in the moment (which should only ever be done in the rarest of circumstances) or you need to acknowledge that you've been heard, I disagree and you need to commit.
IMO, one of the more toxic but often under addressed traits for someone in the team is them wanting all of the power of a decision maker with none of the responsibility. They will spend their time endlessly dissecting how "bone headed" the choices by management are and how we're "obviously ruled by incompetents" but when asked to take on any of the mantle of responsibility to fix any of the issues they see, they instinctively shy away because they're afraid of being judged as harshly by others as they judge.
My more radical belief is that the easiest default path for any team to go down is to say that it's the leader's job to make sure everybody on the team is ok with the decision but that this is an anti-pattern and it's actually up to the subordinates to develop the emotional maturity to understand that decisions will sometimes not go their way and the course charted might be completely baffling or insane to them but if you want that never to happen, then you should be the decision maker.
But the root of making this a successful culture has to be a consistent and mature retro process which is astonishingly hard to pull off which is why it's so rare. The retro is the proper time to judge whether decision making ability is being placed in the right hands or not:
* Did the decision meet, exceed or fall short of our expectations?
* Did it fall short because something within the control of the company/team or outside of the control?
* If inside the control, was there some piece of missing information, which, when revealed in retrospect, would have changed the decision?
* Was the information obtainable at the time? Why didn't we obtain it? Are there changes to the process we should make to learn from this for next time?
The best we can hope for is not perfect decision makers, it's people who can run an effective retro process, learn from their mistakes and steadily increase the quality of their decisions over time. Inability to do that should be the primary reasons someone is removed from their decision making role.