I don't think anyone in the thread has relevant legal qualifications.
This is the wording of a direction which is sometimes given to jurors if they get stuck with their deliberations -
The Watson direction
“Each of you has taken an oath to return a true verdict according to the evidence. No one must be false to that oath, but you have a duty not only as individuals but collectively. That is the strength of the jury system. Each of you takes into the jury box with you your individual experience and wisdom. Your task is to pool that experience and wisdom. You do that by giving your views and listening to the views of others. There must necessarily be discussion, argument and give and take within the scope of your oath. That is the way in which agreement is reached. If, unhappily, [10 of] you cannot reach agreement you must say so.”
Essentially they have an individual and a collective duty to not only give their views but discuss/listen to the views of the others. Their idea of 'reasonable' might turn out to be a misunderstanding of the standard they must uphold, it might change after listening to/discussing with the others, and it doesn't mean any alternative scenario which they can think up which isn't the defence case put forward. For instance, a reasonable doubt wouldn't be that she did anything alleged accidentally.