Clearly the SPA reports for this quadrennium deal more with issues of relevance and value than those of prior quadrenniums. They evince deliberate concern for being interesting to and readable by non-specialists. They include general interest reports that highlight special `newsworthy' developments. They are topical to focus interest and to let the author develop a linear story of progress. In all these ways, they are responsive to the new objective. And in these ways I think they succeed.
Nonetheless we should not forget that the primary readership for these reports has been and always will be the SPA community, whose interest is the traditional one served by the former reports. This interest has been somewhat compromised. Topical reports mean that areas get missed. Notable omissions include cosmic rays, planetary magnetospheres, very low frequency (VLF) waves, and optical aeronomy. Also topical reports are not sure sources for references. These compromises are the cost of the experiment, yet no one denies that the experiment is worth doing. If it works, these reports will serve as models for what to emulate and what to avoid---like long introductions. Next quadrennium's collection of IUGG reports could read like an SPA issue of Scientific American, and that wouldn't be bad.