The daily report that we had given to young scholars, which was distributed at the next meeting, was intended to fix some highlights interventions and facilitate the daily progress of collective thinking. It was understood, and it was often reminded that everyone was speaking in his own behalf and not as a spokesperson for an organization. It was clear to everyone that did not seek the unanimity that there would be no recommendation or motion, or final manifesto.

Many participants reported that their meetings had contributed much in their subsequent work. However, I regret that we have not taken care to record the proceedings for publication. I thought it might fix the position, thus undermining the freedom of the remarks. I also thought that the absence of written communications in advance, as is customary for an academic conference, would not matter for a printed book. I probably was wrong, because the quality of most interventions would have warranted, the Orchard and the public was not enough to broadcast that we wanted. But it would have been an important development work to move from oral to written. We left after a few attempts. France Culture recorded Dating from 1965 and 1966, but these records have not been used, to my knowledge.

We also sought to provide food for thought by creating several studies, with the assistance of the Office of Research of the Ministry of Culture. In 1967, an investigation of Jeanine Larue showed that the working classes were poorly represented in the audience who came to Avignon Festival, unlike the hearings that the NPT meetings organized in the Paris region with cultural associations and unions. But the Festival audience was not just the regulars at theaters and for many it was their first experience. We could learn a lesson: when you touch a new audience, it is primarily the closest that arise. Such was the experience of popular culture associations. I found this evidence in 1968 when we tried to open the University of Vincennes workers and non-graduates.