You could say it is implicit.
Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin.
You can say it's "implicit" -- but there are also many other lies you can tell. The paper describes a mechanism where nodes verify and enforce the system's rules for themselves, using POW for ordering. It doesn't describe a system where nodes stop enforcing their rules if the are overpowered, nor is that how Bitcoin was written.
OK - you accept that it is implicit - but why then go off on the "many other lies" tangent? I'm not interested in the "many other lies" that can or cannot be implied from a loosely worded whitepaper.
We were discussing the issue of consensus and what it means - Core have nurtured a false understanding that somehow it is written that consensus within Bitcoin means 95% or better. But this is not the case. Without any explicit definition of what consensus means then we can fall back to the default - in this case the whitepaper - where it is very obvious that the idea of consensus within Bitcoin is that of a simple majority.
The fact that any hardfork is designed with a threshold of 75% should be considered a bonus.