I hope you are right. But after all the bruhaha of he-said-he-didn't-say, etc., my level of trust in all of them is low, except for the six that stood firm at the USCCB recently.
If the six included Bishops Burke,Chaput,Bruscewitz,Sheridan and Vasa, then it is likely that the six were holding out for a stronger statement.
On the other hand,if the six included McCarrick,Pellotte,Lynch,Hubbard,Mahoney and Keeler,or others of their ilk,it is far more likely that they wanted a united vote for a much more dangerous statement that would have prevented B/bishops from witholding communion.
In other words,those six,who some on these threads hold to be heroes,may instead have been "manipulators",dedicated to producing a "collegial" statement that would have prevented individual B/bishops from exercising their authority and duty to lead their flocks in accord with Church teachings and Canon Law.
It seems that the whole debate is predicated on several assumptions that may or may not reflect the realities and really wastes time and energy.
Finally,there is no way that "very much in harmony" means "in accord with",I am sure Cardinal Ratzinger knows that as does Cardinal McCarrick,as does anyone who has ever written policies and procedures for large private or public entities.