I don't see that consensus resolution need be the same as conch-passing or mere story-telling. It depends how it's structured.
Torchbearer contains elements of consensus resolution. One place is in the negotiation for compromises at the end of a conflict. It inherits this from BW's Duel of Wits, and I'm guessing also from Mouse Guard. (And in this respect it contrasts with In A Wicked Age, which has defaults (enduring debuffs, somewhat comparable to Torchbearer conditions) in the absence of consensus.) Another place is in the rules for using Traits, which depend upon group consensus that the Trait is applicable and that the player activating it is not "reaching".
My knowledge of Fiasco is limited to
Wikipedia, which describes its framing and resolution like this:
for each player's turn, she or he may choose either to Establish or to Resolve.
Should the player choose to Establish, the content of the scene—people, place, conflict—is determined by the player. Doing this allows the player to set up the scene as they wish. However, the resolution of the scene or conflict is determined by the other players, who will choose a light die (a good resolution) or a dark die (a bad resolution) to give to the player in the middle of the scene. The player must accept the resolution, acting out or narrating events accordingly.
Alternatively, should the player choose to Resolve, the other players dictate the circumstances of the scene: the characters with whom the player's character will interact, where it happens, and what the conflict within the scene is. Choosing this option gives the player control of the resolution, unlike the Establish option. . . .
If there were mostly positive resolutions in Act One, there will, by necessity, be mostly negative resolutions in Act Two.
Taken at face value, there is no Czege violation here, as no one both frames and resolves. And it looks like "drama" resolution (using Tweet and Edwards' fortune/karma/drama terminology), with a player's choice of resolution being (as I understand it) constrained by the available resolution dice.
Relating this back to
@Manbearcat's OP: I think in this sort of resolution framework there is less scope for skilful play based on knowledge or manipulation of the mechanics. That doesn't necessarily stop "step on up" drift, however: based on that Wikipedia description Fiasco seems like it could be a site of low-level social competition, eg over influencing the framing of scenes and maybe even pushing for dice or gambling on a particular "tilt" outcome.
@chaochou, have you ever encountered that style of "gamist" Fiasco? (Montsegur, simply in virtue of its thematic content, seems like it would be more resistant to any such drift. But that's mere intuition, not experience.)