This occurred after about five hours and 18 minutes of the 139^th IOC Session.

There were of course no questions; and the vote, by show of hands, was proclaimed unanimous.

"Is it just one other proof that it is very good to propose difficult issues after lunch?" joked IOC President Thomas Bach, attempting gamely to raise a laugh from behind his IOC-branded mask.

It is frankly not a bad effort to reach this point by only the fifth week of the calendar year.

However, I am told, I think reliably, that the IOC is not planning to actually publish the accounts for a few months yet.

Rest assured, we will do what we can to chivvy things along.

But for now, I am afraid, serious scrutiny will have to wait until that glad, confident morning: any meaningful analysis of the expenditure side in particular demands access to, and careful study of, the small print.

For the time being, anyone outside the post-prandial inner circle is restricted to the limited information on the two slides which the IOC did deign to display at the Session.

Nonetheless, some important points regarding the disrupted Pyeongchang-Tokyo cycle can already be made.

By far the most important is that the IOC has indeed succeeded in pulling its 2017-2021 revenue cake from out of the COVID fire.

One of the slides assessed 2021 television revenue at $3.1 billion (£2.3 billion/€2.7 billion) - exactly the sum that would have been expected a year earlier had the pandemic not forced postponement of the Tokyo 2020 Summer Games.

Of course, this may not quite be the final word on the matter: thanks to the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) we know that the one-year postponement of Tokyo 2020 triggered a so-called "Right of Abatement" clause in the IOC's key $1.4 billion (£1 billion/€1.2 billion) agreement with NBCUniversal.

Under this, the two parties "shall negotiate in good faith an equitable reduction in the applicable broadcast rights payments", with negotiations occurring "after completion of the Games in 2021".

Given what one hears about US viewing figures for Tokyo - although it should be remembered that digitisation is making comparative analysis increasingly complex - it would be little surprise if the IOC found the media group in hard bargaining mode.

Then again, Lausanne and NBC are long-term partners and a Summer Games in the broadcaster’s home market is on the horizon in 2028. So I would not expect such negotiations to leave too big a dent.

The slide also put 2021 revenue from The Olympic Partner (TOP) worldwide sponsorship programme at $835.6 million (£618 million/€730 million).

This too is rather interesting in that it appears to signify that Bach’s prognostication that TOP would raise around $3 billion (£2.2 billion/€2.6 billion) in the 2021-2024 quadrennium is on track.

One needs to be somewhat careful owing to the unique five-year cycle, however I would think that - unlike the 2021 TV money - this sponsorship income relates essentially to the Beijing-Paris cycle, and not to Pyeongchang-Tokyo.

If my hunch is correct, one would expect the IOC to book north of $800 million (£590 million/€700 million) in TOP sponsorship revenue in each of the next three years, for a four-year total of more than $3.2 billion (£2.4 billion/€2.8 billion).

As I have written before, sponsorship is becoming - comparatively speaking - an increasingly important revenue source both for the IOC and the Olympic Movement.

By my calculations, of the $8.35 billion (£6.2 billion/€7.3 billion) of aggregate revenue booked by the IOC over the five years from 2017 to 2021, 54.6 per cent was derived from broadcasting rights and 36.1 per cent from sponsorship.

And remember, this excludes the unprecedented deluge of local sponsorship revenue raked in by Tokyo 2020.

The growing dependence on sponsorship comes with a built-in problem for the IOC, however. A very significant proportion of TOP revenue takes the form of so-called value-in-kind, an accounting construct designed to assign a value to the goods and services with which sponsors are actually paying a big, big chunk of their IOC dues.

Part of the appeal of TV rights revenue is that it is paid in cold, hard cash. And much as Toyota motor-cars and Samsung devices are helpful when it comes to Games organisation, it is cold hard cash that the myriad constituent parts of the international sports edifice require to keep functioning in current form.

This, I think, largely explains the IOC's current preoccupation - when not overshadowed by COVID - with attempting to nurture new revenue streams.

It is also in part why it seems to me that those bodies which are most heavily dependent on IOC subsidy would be well advised to do all in their power to reduce this dependency as a matter of some urgency.

And that, I’m afraid, is about the limit of what can be reliably deduced from the figures which the IOC has been good enough to share with us, the great unwashed.

The meatier expenditure side of the ledger in all its glory, along with any further clues regarding the Great Tokyo Insurance Payout Mystery, will follow once the information police decides that the general public is ready for a fuller picture.