"Think this might need to be handled very carefully"

Quite. It's all about the agenda, and whether some very specific information owed to the public is delivered to them or not. I don't intend to sit through a meeting that doesn't do that.

I see no point in anyone spending time saying what they think should be done or on EH presenting a "review" aimed at the rectifying five years of non-transparency (much though it's needed). Every minute on those or on questions about maintenance or access or crystal skulls is a minute not spent on the issue that matters: the announced repair solution's apparent total disconnection with the published data.

Thankfully, EH have informed me that the research agenda is no longer relevant to the decision: "Any archaeological investigation and recording is a secondary consideration". Good. The issue has now become a very simple structural one and there will be no need to even mention research dividends at the meeting since to do so would clearly involve influencing opinion by reference to secondary issues that have zero bearing on Silbury's structural welfare. "The structural realities and why they suggest that tunnelling is the answer" is the only concern, all else would be counter-productive flim flam. Focus is all.