The famous five will decide Stuart Lancaster's fate, or the four Ians and Ben Kay. But in the chief of all ironies, the panel chosen by the RFU to look into England's dismal Rugby World Cup campaign has provoked more questions as it begins its search for answers.
The quintet are: Ian Ritchie (RFU CEO), Ian Watmore (ex-FA CEO and England Rugby 2015 board member), Sir Ian McGeechan (British & Irish Lions legend), Ben Kay (World Cup-winner and brilliant analyst) and Ian Metcalfe (chairman of the professional game board).
The purpose of the panel is to review England's preparations for, and performances in, the World Cup; to review the effectiveness of the coaching, management and support team and to then put their findings to the RFU board, who will decide what action to take.
From an English point of view, the elephant in the room is Sir Clive Woodward. The only sensible argument for his absence is that he could be part of the solution, but few know the mechanics of winning in rugby better and boast his vision. It is a bizarre omission.
The selection -- bar Kay -- suggests the RFU is unwilling to welcome perspectives from outside a fairly intimate circle.
McGeechan was part of the panel who opted for Lancaster in 2012 and has already set out his stall in favour of the England coaching incumbents continuing.
There is no doubting the pedigree of the four Ians but quite how Watmore fits in is ambiguous and just why the RFU felt the need to pick the brains of a former CEO of an organisation which has presided over 49 years of failure since the 1966 World Cup, only they know. He is on the England 2015 board so has some rugby pedigree, but surely cannot understand the workings of a high performance outfit like Woodward.
Ritchie, someone who has managed to distance himself from the World Cup fallout, is chairing the panel but another interesting omission is Rob Andrew, the RFU's rugby director. His absence suggests his role will come under scrutiny.
Metcalfe's presence is logical given he heads up the Professional Game Board, which seldom appears a transparent entity but includes representatives from the Aviva Premiership clubs. He has previous with RFU reviews having been one of the protagonists in the 2011 post-mortem.
And then there is Kay. The brilliant analyst is the one ray of sunlight among the five but his ability to think outside of the box and provide objective analysis may be swept away by the entrenched nature of the others. It all cries out for that added injection of Sir Clive, as Will Greenwood has highlighted.
Another potential pitfall of the review panel is the lack of a southern hemisphere presence. That half of the globe forms the semifinal quartet. Sir Graham Henry would have come at a price but would have given some valuable insight into the failings of England since 2003. A slightly more wildcard option would have been Brad Thorn, an individual who has achieved unparalleled success across both rugby union and league.
"Sir Graham Henry would have come at a price but would have given some valuable insight into the failings of England since 2003" ESPN Rugby Editor Tom Hamilton
And then there is the review itself. Is it focusing on the last four years or taking into account a record of one Six Nations title since 2003? And will it also address the unsustainable number of games an individual such as Joe Launchbury faces from now through to the end of England's tour to Australia in June? Too many matches, after all, have been blamed for the northern hemisphere's shortcomings.
The review must also analyse whether England are being too short-sighted with their policy of not picking those based overseas -- it has hardly harmed the Wallabies' World Cup prospects.
England's failed World Cup campaign needs to be analysed but the review must be prepared to go into some awkward, uncomfortable areas and also take in perspectives from outside the RFU box.
The choice of panellists -- Kay apart -- might just mean this review ends as a missed opportunity to right the wrongs of 12 years of underperformance.