The two governments say there will be no major changes, writes Gerry Moriarty, Northern Editor.
The Belfast Agreement will be reviewed after the Assembly elections but there will be no change to its fundamental principles, the British and Irish governments have asserted.
Dublin and London have not abandoned hope of an Executive being resurrected after the November 26th poll, notwithstanding last week's Hillsborough debacle and that the election is proceeding without a deal.
The British and Irish governments still argue that pro-agreement unionists could be in the ascendant over their anti-agreement rivals come November 27th, despite the rising confidence in the DUP that it will be the majority unionist party.
Regardless of the outcome, under paragraph 8 of the final chapter of the Belfast Agreement, a review must take place shortly after the election. The paragraph states that the governments and the parties "will convene a conference four years after the agreement comes into effect to review and report on its operation".
There were four suspensions and an almost habitual state of crisis or impending crisis since the first Assembly was elected in June 1998, with the result that the review scheduled for June 2002 never took place.
The governments, however, are committed to that review beginning before Christmas but maintain that there can be little or no major material change to the Belfast Agreement.
The DUP and other No unionists characterise the governments' faith in the possibility of an Executive being formed before Christmas as a triumph of hope over experience, insisting that there must be some form of re-negotiation of the agreement.
After the fiasco of last week, the political wind would appear to be with anti-agreement unionists.
For devolution to be restored in late November or December, the Yes wing of Ulster Unionism must defeat, however narrowly, its unionist opponents.
Secondly, the deal stalled by the transparency problem over IRA decommissioning must be reactivated.
In the current political climate that is very difficult to achieve. The persistent official argument remains, however, that the majority of unionists will trust in "David Trimble's leadership over Ian Paisley's".
Accentuating the positive, London and Dublin point to the notable lack of angry recrimination between Sinn Féin and the UUP, contending that if Yes unionists are still in the majority at the end of the month, the transparency problem might still be surmounted.
In the June 1998 Assembly election, the SDLP won 24 seats and Sinn Féin won 18, giving them 42 seats.
Irrespective of how the nationalist seats are divided this time, both parties are virtually certain to endorse a new Executive, if one can be formed.
Five years ago, the UUP took 28 seats while the DUP won 20. When all the anti-agreement unionists seats were added up they totalled 28, equal to those of the Ulster Unionists.
The two seats of the pro-agreement Progressive Unionist Party were enough, however, to ensure that Mr Trimble could be elected as First Minister.
With the various convulsions and divisions within Yes and No unionism since then, the position is reversed: Yes unionists now hold 28 seats (26 UUP and 2 PUP), while No unionists hold 30.
The DUP, with considerable confidence, argues that not only will it greatly exceed its 1998 figure of 20 seats but that on its own it can have more seats than the UUP.
There is a general acknowledgement that the DUP will perform well in this election. The governments and pro-agreement parties hope this will be at the expense of the smaller anti-agreement unionist groupings.
The governments hope that there are still a majority of unionists who accept that the three IRA acts of decommissioning and the firmer republican commitment to peace were achieved in large measure due to UUP pressure.
"I don't think the majority of unionists believe that Ian Paisley could have achieved what David Trimble has achieved," said one London source.
The governments also acknowledge that although that majority of Yes unionists may still exist, persuading them in the face of considerable political apathy and cynicism to vote for David Trimble is a huge challenge.