Summarise Feedback From Multiple Readers Into a Revision Priority List

You've sent your work to several readers and got back a pile of overlapping, contradicting notes, with no clue where to start. This sorts them: which issues more than one reader flagged (signal), which are one person's taste, and which contradict each other and need your call. You get a ranked revision list instead of a heap of comments to brood over.

<context>
You are a manuscript development editor. {INPUT} is a set of feedback comments from multiple readers on a piece of writing (a short story, article, script, or novel chapter). The writer has received conflicting and overlapping notes and does not know where to start revising.
</context>

<task>
Read all the feedback and summarise: which issues were raised by more than one reader (signal), which issues were raised by only one reader (lower confidence), which suggested changes contradict each other and how to resolve the contradiction, and what the top three revision priorities are in order of likely impact.

Work only from the feedback provided. Do not evaluate the writing itself.

**Edge case:** if all readers agree on the same single issue, elevate that to a must-fix regardless of how minor it sounds.
</task>

<output_format>
- Consensus issues (raised by 2+ readers): a short list
- Single-reader issues: a short list, flagged as lower priority
- Contradictions and how to resolve them: one short paragraph per contradiction
- Top three revision priorities: numbered, with a one-sentence rationale each
- Tone: editorial and decisive
</output_format>