Methodologies for evaluating and selecting policies that contribute to the well-being of diverse populations need clarification. To bridge the gap between objective indicators and policies related to well-being, this study shifts from constitutive pluralism based on objective indicators to conceptual pluralism that emphasizes subjective context, and develops from subjective-objective pluralism through individual-group pluralism to WE pluralism and presents a new policy evaluation method that combines joint fact finding based on policy plurality. First, to evaluate policies involving diverse stakeholders, I develop from individual subjectivity-objectivity to individual subjectivity and group intersubjectivity, and then move to a narrow-wide WE pluralism in the gradation of I-family-community-municipality-country-world. Additionally, by referring to some functional forms of well-being, I formulate the dependence of well-being on narrow-wide WE. Finally, given that policies themselves have a plurality of social, ecological, and economic values, I define a set of policies for each of the narrow-wide WE and consider a mapping between the two to provide an evaluation basis. Furthermore, by combining well-being and joint fact-finding on the narrow-wide WE consensus, the policy evaluation method is formulated. The fact-value combined parameter system, combined policy-making approach, and combined impact evaluation are disclosed as examples of implementation. This paper contributes to the realization of a well-being society by bridging philosophical theory and policies based on WE pluralism and presenting a new method of policy evaluation based on subjective context and consensus building.