The idea of preventing stalemates was certainly not the basis on which the committee agreed to adopt that number. It might have been the motivation for some people — I can’t say what people were thinking — but that was not the stated reason. That was simply that the current number of 12 had seemed too large to some, and so a smaller number was proposed. That’s all.
As has already been pointed out, having 9 on the committee doesn’t prevent stalemates anyway, because it’s unlikely that every member will attend every meeting, and someone might abstain anyway.
More importantly, if we end up with votes being decided by a margin of one, we have a bigger problem anyway. We should be looking for consensus, not small majorities. On that basis, the precise number of members is really irrelevant; it’s all about whether it works at the time.
And talk of precedent is certainly premature; we are still finding our way! We can think in terms of precedent when we have been around for a few years.
So I can’t think of any good reason for excluding one of the candidates now.