What should I do if my advisor and committee members want me to do two different things?

The way you present it, it sounds like the two are mutually exclusive, but they are not really: a "stapler thesis" generally contains an introduction and a conclusion that are there to tie the papers together into a whole. This implies a unifying theme and a narrative. It's only a few pages, but it makes a big difference.

You should probably at least make some effort to introduce a narrative, despite your advisor's opinion. Of course you know them best, but in general it's less likely that someone would refuse to sign off on something because you put in more effort than they thought warranted, and more likely they would refuse because you didn't put in enough. Better to err on the side of doing more.

If you trust your advisor's ability to manage dissertations (does he have supervising experience at your institution?), follow his lead and forget about the rest.

The way I see it, it is your job to do 110% of the work that goes into the dissertation in accordance with your advisor's instructions. Your advisor's job is to manage the political aspects of the dissertation. Normally, he should not suggest anyone to be on your committee if he is not certain that he can work with them.

If your advisor can manage the committee, you should not worry about a thing. For the most part you should not even need to talk to your committee members beyond a simple formality. I only saw my committee members when I sought their advice explicitly. None of them told me to do things a certain way.

IF you have to justify your actions, go with a vague statement like "I appreciate your input, I tried to put it to work as much as I could. There were other factors I had to balance (vague hint to your advisor's role). All in all, I am pretty happy with how it turned out, thanks to your suggestions."