This might be a different thougt experiment but it could be plausible that what appears to one subject to be a situation where 5 people are going to be crushed by a trolley might appear as a situation where 5 people are ready to jump away from trolleys path. Or to phrase it another way in order for the consequentialist position be alluding one needs to be reasonably sure that the difference in consequence is reasonably big.

One could argue that if you know that your perception of reality is distorted it might be a properous way of being as less agenty as possible. That is a fool migth be capable of redirecting a trolley towards an unsuspecting victim based on a delusion of non-real danger to other persons. That is while the harm is lesser that estimation might be truer. Thus if there are two people disagreeing whether to pull or not the one that is more unsure of his position should yield.

But I guess the intention is to assume that the danger is real. In a way if you assume you are not fit to make decisions discussing what decision you should make is somewhat selfdefeating. But it migth be relevant for reduced capacity.

I could also believe that one could phrase it as "What should the guideline for such situations be?" but I guess that would raise the question on whether the rules to follow are subject to some kind of rules. But it can highlight that such rules are inadequate to provide a choice. That in a way if you choose one way and state a principle as the guideline you followed it is an unsystematic choice as you could have chosen another rule that would have favoured the other option. Or it can lead one to claim that doing that way or another is not a moral choice as the book doesn't cover it.