Similarly, regarding the sporting programme - an issue on which the Movement has shown a remarkable aptitude for tying itself up in the most inextricable knots in recent years - there remains a large amount of confusion.

And I mean in the minds of Olympic decision-makers, let alone the rest of us poor wretches.

The basic idea - of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each individual event when determining the Olympic programme, and of setting limits that prevent the size of the Summer Games from escalating out of control while making it easier for new sports to be included - appears sound enough.

What remains, for now, as clear as mud - and I have tested this on a number of diligent, well plugged-in IOC members - is the ejection mechanism for events deemed no longer able to cut the Olympic mustard.

This might be by design: a clear explanation of the process via which events are expelled into the Olympic wilderness might have provoked a blizzard of queries that would, in turn, have bogged down the entire Agenda 2020 process.

It suggests, though, that what has been accomplished today may just be the easy part.

The IOC has a reputation for being a conservative organisation and usually only proposes change if it is certain it will be successful ©IOC

What will be the reaction once established Olympic sports start to be hit with proposals for real reductions in their respective programmes, be they of events, or of the number of athletes accepted for participation in events?

The contrast with the clarity and detail of information provided after lunch on the proposed new Olympic Channel - much the most adventurous innovation approved by the Session - was quite striking.

More than one hundred new staff required (106 to be precise), a Madrid base, projected costs over the first seven years, including contingency, of €490 million.

Here was a real sense of a well-thought-through project, and of course the membership approved it unanimously.

None of this was particularly surprising; as I have written before, politics is the art of the possible and the IOC has prospered over a long period by being conservative.

It does not tend to shake things up unless it is pretty darn sure the result will constitute an improvement.

Former IOC marketing director Michael Payne claims he spoke to Thomas Bach about an Olympic TV Channel 15 years ago ©Twitter

The idea of something akin to an Olympic Channel was first raised, I understand, as long ago as the early 1990s, but was not deemed a viable concept in those far off pre-digital days.

Bach and his colleagues have done remarkably well, all things considered, to bring this raft of proposals to a conclusion little more than a year after he assumed office.

But, the channel apart, it still leaves me wondering how much, fundamentally, is going to change in Agenda 2020's wake.

Will these reforms help to engender a rush of bidders, and bidders prepared to stay the course, for the 2026 Winter Games?

How different will the 2024 Summer Games sporting programme really be from Rio 2016 – and, critically, will any changes have a meaningful impact in boosting the number of young viewers and grass-roots participants?

We shall have to wait and see, but it seems to me that the 40 measures do relatively little to address one of the big structural problems affecting the Movement: that the cost-benefit equation for hosting the Winter Games is not attractive enough for bidders because large areas of the globe are not much interested in them.

"Today is decision day," said Bach at the outset of Monday's proceedings.

"This is a great, great step forward," he added more than six hours later, at 3.45pm, as the Olympic Channel recommendation sailed through.

He is right on both counts.

I persist in thinking, however, that with the exception of recommendation 19 (to launch the channel), revolution day this was not.