One of the most important features of the paper produced by the Irish and British governments this week is that it's not the end but the beginning of a possible settlement.
When it's described as an agenda that's what it is: a list of items to be discussed, not the ambitions, hidden or otherwise, of its authors.
We must watch our words here. This is not a time for making assumptions or taking things for granted.
Words may seriously affect the public mood, raising fears or expectations; scattering false impressions when and where they are apt to do most damage.
As for commentators, the best they can offer is the sound of chipping at the walls of prejudice which too often surround their audiences and stop them listening for the sound of chipping on the other side.
Niall O'Dowd, publisher of the Irish Voice and influential friend of many powerful IrishAmericans, is a commentator who commands attention at home and abroad.
It has been said of him that only the participants knew more about the manoeuvring which preceded the IRA's 1994 ceasefire.
So when he warns that the joint paper "contains within it the potential to cause major problems for the (current) IRA ceasefire", it's time to sit up and take notice.
He explained why he had reached this conclusion in a much-quoted article commissioned by The Irish Times and in an interview broadcast on RTE Radio's News at One on Thursday.
In both he quoted a "source close to the peace process" calling the new paper "a saucer of milk" put out for David Trimble and claimed it was not nearly as far-reaching as the Framework Document.
"Why," he asked, "did the Government move away so decisively from the Framework Document specifically in three key areas: the totality of relationships; executive crossborder bodies; and the equality agenda?"
He referred to the "totality of relationships" as an example of the "language of progress from documents over the past decade or so" which had been "compromised" in the joint paper.
In his version of events, the "totality of relationships" was a phrase "long interpreted as referring to the all-Ireland dimension of the problem of Northern Ireland".
But in the new document "it has been neutered to include relationships between the British and Irish governments, the Northern Ireland administration and the devolved institutions which are currently being established in Scotland and Wales."
O'Dowd is scornful of the east-west body: "Mr Trimble, not unreasonably, calls it a Council for the British Isles. What it seems to be is a useless talking shop."
But he is wrong about the totality of relationships, wrong about the language of progress being compromised in the joint paper and wrong about the Government's supposed abandonment of a long-held position.
Since Niall O'Dowd is a commentator to whom Sinn Fein leaders are likely to pay attention and since he makes his case in the context of a warning about the potential to cause major problems for the IRA ceasefire, this has to be taken seriously.
SO HOW, and in what context, did the phrase "totality of relationships" gain currency?
The first I heard of it was on December 8th, 1980, when Charles Haughey and Margaret Thatcher, with appropriately attentive retinues, met and made history - or so he claimed - in Dublin Castle.
"Totality of relationships" was the most intriguing phrase in their joint communique, precisely because it did not refer to relations between North and South but was generally considered a pointer to novel and possibly more farreaching developments.
What the relevant section of the communique said was: "The Taoiseach and the Prime Minister agreed that the economic, social and political interests of the peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Republic are inextricably linked; but that the full development of these links has been put under strain by division and dissent in Northern Ireland.
"In this context, they accepted the need to bring forward policies and proposals to achieve peace, reconciliation and stability; and to improve relations between the peoples of the two countries.
"They considered that the best prospect of attaining these objectives was the further development of the unique relationship between the two countries. They accordingly decided to devote their next meeting in London during the coming year to special consideration of the totality of relationships within these islands . . ."
But what had seemed a promising beginning was undermined by Mr Haughey's exaggerated accounts of likely developments: everything, he said, was on the cards. When next they met, at an EU summit, Mrs Thatcher was in an angry mood and, apart from a tantalising reference by James Molyneaux, the totality of relationships disappeared from sight.
O'Dowd claims the Framework Document "clearly established the principle of Dublin having executive as well as consultative powers in decisions" but insists the new paper does not make it clear that the consultative role achieved under the Anglo-Irish Agreement will change.
The Framework Document, which was published almost three years ago, was notoriously complex and eminently forgettable. By comparison, this week's paper is a model of clarity. But the powers proposed for North-South institutions in both derive from the authority vested in them by two administrations, not one.
Where O'Dowd has a point, which needs to be addressed not only by Bertie Ahern and his colleagues but by the unionist parties, is in his complaint about the curious use of the words "equity of treatment" where "equality of treatment" should have been in the joint paper.
It's intended to describe the action needed to secure confidence all round and among nationalists in particular. It suggests a grudging approach and is bound to remind people of the difference between two distinct approaches to the reality for nationalists of life under unionism.
On one side there are those who still refuse to acknowledge how lopsided things have been in Northern Ireland; on the other, the less inhibited people like David Ervine, Billy Hutchinson and Gary McMichael who make no bones about it. And who, unlike the IRA, apologised for their violence.
The agenda for the discussions isn't perfect and many of the participants are still obviously on edge. Matters aren't improved by those who insist on chalking up points day by day and week by week; by interviewers who compete with each other for the most extreme reactions.
But then journalism which is bent on naming winners and losers is also likely to keep tallies of abuse. The more often the interviewee can be goaded into claims of betrayal, sell-out or treachery the better. There's nothing like it for the ratings and the readership.
Real questioning, designed to chip away at old assumptions, is something else. There are readers and listeners who object to the sound of chipping and complain of anything that goes against the partisan grain; but it's the only way we'll come to realise what it feels like to be out there, looking in at us.