One member wants a theoretical framework added. Another wants the chapter cut. Both comments are in the margin of the same page, and both are reasonable on their own.
The useful step is to list every comment from every member, group the ones that conflict, and bring the grouped list to your chair before revising anything. Chairs can rule on a conflict. Students generally cannot, and the attempt tends to cost time.
A workable sequence: (1) transcribe all comments into one document, tagged by member and location; (2) sort them into agree, conflict, and clarification-needed; (3) send the conflict and clarification groups to your chair with a one-line proposal for each; and (4) revise the agreed items while you wait. Step four matters because it keeps the draft moving, and most comments in most drafts are not in conflict.
A student who silently picks a side tends to see the same comment return at the next draft, now with the added signal that it was ignored. A student who surfaces the conflict gives the chair a decision to make and a record of the decision, which protects the revision at the defense.
Some conflicts are not conflicts. "Add a framework" and "cut the chapter" may both be satisfied by a short, well-chosen framework that replaces three pages of general background. Ask the chair whether a combined response would satisfy both members before assuming a binary choice.
Keep the grouped list. It becomes the document you consult when a member asks, at the defense, why a section looks the way it does.
This is practitioner guidance, not a study of committee behavior.
I coach Ed.D. and Ph.D. students in education through the dissertation. Details and pricing: cevallos.org/dissertation-thesis-coaching