Your 2 posts are in conflict with each other and yet, at the same time they are in absolute agreement with each other.
Let me illustrate. You said:
”Reality” is the consensual agreement between observers.
I say that the individual 'observer' creates and has his own 'reality' and 'agreement' or 'non-agreement' with other observers doesn't create reality, it creates society.
Then you went on to say in your next post that;
”Reality” only becomes an issue when a particular version of it is disputed.
Each “particular version” in the “dispute” has to exist prior to the “dispute” occurring otherwise the “dispute” could not exist.
Subjugating one's “reality” for the sake of “society” is a “slippery slope”. Eventually the individual loses the relationship with one's 'self' and becomes 'lost' in society. This 'lostness' produces all of society's woes (greed, murder, domestic violence, war, racial injustice, etc.) and is not in the best interest of the individual or society.
It is imperative for the sanity of 'society' and the world that each individual refuse to attempt to 'prove' (explain) their reality to each other. The only result that it produces is the domination or subjugation of your reality. Not a good idea. It is also imperative that those individuals refuse to participate with those who want to 'compare notes' with them.
Individuals create society by be-ing individuals, it doesn't happen the other way around. Society (whatever label it has) will never be accountable. Accountability is an individual choice. Individual accountability is the only thing that will reduce greed, murder, domestic violence, war, or racial injustice.
In a nutshell, it is in the best interest of all humans Be-ing on this planet that you 'stand your ground' and no longer allow the world and society to define who you are.
Based on the assumptions contained in the word “reality”, “consensual agreement”, “observers”, etc. this is just one of a few different directions this discussion could have gone.
However, the discussion (above) fails to introduce the possibility of 'you', Be-ing, so by introducing 'you', Be-ing, the conversation heads off in another direction.
Let's assume that you're sitting down while reading this. Notice that 'you' know your body is sitting in a chair looking at a computer monitor, 'you' know that you're reading words, and interpreting the words 'you' are reading.
Where does the 'you' take place? Does it take place in the body? Does it take place in the “sitting” or the “looking”? Does the 'you' take place in the “reading” and “interpreting”? Or, does the 'you' take place in all of it?
Don't 'you' occur in all of life? Aren't 'you' always there when you are buying books, raising children, paying bills, going to church, hunting, fishing, making love, and on and on. Doesn't the joy of all this happen when 'you' show up while buying books, raising children, etc. If 'you' don't show up isn't all of this just “going through the motions” and just marking time?
Earlier, I spoke of “subjugating one's reality for the sake of society”. What I'm really talking about is subjugating 'you' in favor of the world.
In the conversation about “reality”, “consensual agreement”, and “observers” the 'you' is assumed (and ignored) by all of us. Everybody is looking into the world for the evidence (explanation) that 'you' exist instead of being accountable for what you know.
'You' only show up in the realm of 'knowing' therefore 'you' can't be proved, because 'proving' isn't the same as 'knowing'. 'Knowing' requires that you get on with your life. 'Proving' allows you to keep your life 'on hold' and complain about the way it turned out. You can spend your entire lifetime looking for proof and never find it. The interesting thing to notice is that if you didn't already know, you couldn't be looking for proof.
Ultimately you spend your time on the planet 'proving' (explaining) so you don't have to be accountable for 'knowing'.