His approach is antithetical to that of Agronski in that he has studied the Lithians intently, but his output reflects equally simple interpretations. Earlier in the story it is mentioned that Ruiz-Sanchez understands all knowledge to go through stages, from noise into fact and back into noise, the residuum being faith (p. 8). This is precisely the process he has engaged in. Thus, while his opinion was far more considered than that of Agronski, his vote was equally superficial, because after processing all of the knowledge he acquired, it become noise and his faith presided over all. The author at first hints at placing Ruiz-Sanchez against Cleaver, as apt to vote to isolate Lithia out of respect for the Lithians when indeed no such conclusion was reached, pointing to the irrationality of Ruiz-Sanchez' decision. Thus, he becomes the counterpart to Agronski's dull-witted rationality, both view equally irrelevant but given the same value of the views of the other two men because that is what the rules prescribe.
There are any number of different approaches that can be taken. It is difficult for humankind to truly understand the nature of the Lithians or the true best course of action, simply because there are so many different perspectives that can be used to help understand the situation. With each perspective, there will be tendencies -- outcomes that can likely be predicted. Yet, because all of these different perspectives exist, decision-making becomes paralyzed, as is predicted with respect to the Lithia situation at the end of the story. The paralysis is itself an outcome, and it is an outcome that none of the men in question had debated the merits of, either in terms of inputs or outputs. This is an ironic point for the author to make -- that each of the men carried with them a perspective that would yield a fairly easy answer yet because there are four differing perspectives there is no easy answer, just noise.
