Do World Cup bid reports matter?
The one real conclusion you can draw from the publication of the Fifa evaluation reports on the World Cup bidders for 2018 and 2022 is, well, that, there is no conclusion.
All that we will see are the executive summaries, which, in the most neutral Swiss technocratic language, assess how each of the nine bidders have fared in relation to Fifa's technical requirements.
It is understood a fuller report examining each of the bids across 17 different risk criteria will be sent to members of Fifa's executive committee before the votes on 2 December.
With all the bidders trying to spin their way through the last two weeks of this contest, it is not straightforward to work out who, if anyone, has come out on top. But, as far as 2018 is concerned, it is understood England has done at least as well as the Spain/Portugal bid and slightly better than Russia.
But we will never see the reports and, in publishing the bland summaries that offer only the level of legal risk to Fifa, world football's governing body has deliberately avoided any controversy over the evaluation process.
Yet there are criticisms.
England's lack of luxury hotel rooms, concerns over training sites for teams in London and some quibbling over letters of government guarantees are highlighted. England 2018 officials say these are minor and are being dealt with.
Russia's transport infrastructure is a concern for Fifa, while Spain/Portugal's decision to sumbmit a joint bid is flagged up as a worry.
For the Netherlands and Belgium, the report is a bit more of a setback. The bid's medium legal risk assessment makes it less of a safe bet for 2018, mainly because of a complete failure to provide any government guarantees.
In the race for 2022, there are serious questions raised over Qatar's bid, the most notable being health concerns for players, officials and supporters who would be taking part in a World Cup in the intense heat of June and July. The United States is also criticised over their ability to provide guarantees.
Will any of this matter when it comes to the vote?
Some members of the Fifa executive committee do give serious regard to the technical reports. However, without any clear guidance from the group that carried them out, it is difficult to see the reports being particularly persuasive.
Others may use the concerns raised as an excuse to vote in a way they were always considering anyway. And what must be kept in mind throughout the next two weeks is that the whole selection process is neither open nor transparent.
It is a secret vote and working out how it will go is always an educated guess. Even afterwards, we may not know who voted for whom and why. All we can do is try to read the signs - and at the moment England still has some ground to make up on Spain/ Portugal and Russia.
That is mainly because of the backlash from some Fifa members against the British media over investigations into corruption in the bidding process.
On Wednesday, the Fifa ethics committee is due to finish its three-day hearing into claims by the Sunday Times that two executive committee members were willing to offer their votes in return for cash for football projects.
It is also examining claims made by the same newspaper that Spain and Portugal are in a voting alliance with Qatar.
If the ethics committee takes strong action against one or both of the Fifa members - Reynald Temarii of Tahiti and Amos Adamu of Nigeria - then that might help defuse the row over the media, even though BBC Panorama is still planning its own programme on Fifa three days before the vote.
Of potentially greater significance will be the findings on Spain/Portugal and Qatar. There are suggestions that, even though no evidence of collusion has been found, Fifa may consider delaying the vote for 2022 to remove any suspicions from the process.
That would have a much bigger impact on England's chances than any evaluation report.