This is a bit out of context here, so I'm not sure where the question is coming from. But it seems pretty straightforward. The question is what you mean by "collectively." In HQ the rule is, technically, that the Narrator narrates the results. In fact I'm assuming that's why the term is what it is. So, strictly speaking it's not collective in that the Narrator gets to say whatever he wants.
That said, RPGs being social, the Narrator is, of course, influenced by what the other players expect. And in most play I've seen players will to some extent "hint" to the Narrator what would make for a cool response. So in that way it is collective to some extent.
To be frank, this is the only rule that I modify when playing HQ (I've said before that I play without modification, but here's the exception that proves the rule). Given that players often have good ideas, and/or will produce for themselves more satisfactory narrations, I often delegate the responsibility to narrate results to various players. "Tell me what that looked like," is something that I say a lot. At other times we work it out by "committee" with me as Narrator retaining the right to break it up, and make a final decision so that it doesn't take too long. Other times I just narrate, and at all times reserve the right to do so. All depends on the situation.
Given that I reserve the right, I think that such delegation is fairly well covered by the section in the Narrator's section about giving control to the players at times over what the world is like. As such, it's not really much of a modification if at all.
So, I'd say that, basically, the strict definition is that the Narrator narrates - but if you're doing it collectively in some manner, it'll probably work just fine too as long as the Narrator maintains control overall.
Did I overanswer? :-)
Mike
Powered by hypermail