"Four questions about agreement, with Article 81 EC, can be distinguished. The first is one of analysis: What is it for something to be an agreement within Article 81? The second is one of linguistic definition: What, for the purposes of Article 81, does “agreement” mean? This differs from the analytical question as it concerns a word in a particular language, but the answers to the two questions will be substantively the same. The third question is epistemic: How can we know whether X and Y have an agreement within Article 81? This can be recast in legal terms as: What, for the purposes of Article 81, is sufficient evidence to prove the existence of an agreement? The fourth is a question about conditions: What are the conditions for X and Y to have an agreement within Article 81? The answer to this will depend on the kind of condition at issue; it is plausible to hold for example that, if the question concerns truth- or assertability-conditions  for sentences of the form “X and Y have an agreement”, the answer will coincide with those to the first two questions, but that this will not be so if the question concerns, say, causal conditions for an agreement’s existence."