The debate over pension reform has now moved beyond broad political promises into a much more difficult phase: one centred on specific figures, actual beneficiaries and the cost that society will ultimately be asked to bear.
Reports of pension increases ranging from 2% to 60%, together with the President's public references to increases of €250 to €300, have understandably raised expectations among pensioners.
For people trying to live on pensions that, in many cases, fail to provide a decent standard of living, such increases could help address significant needs during a particularly difficult economic period, especially for the most vulnerable members of society.
Precisely for that reason, the government must ensure that its proposals are fully substantiated and capable of matching the ambitions being discussed by the legislature.
The fact that Labour Minister Marinos Mousiouttas says there will be no pension cuts and that a "golden balance" has been achieved with the Ministry of Finance is positive.
But it is not enough.
What is required is a clear and detailed presentation of the entire reform package, without ambiguities or generalities, including its cost and the groups that will effectively finance these changes.
The proposed increase in the basic pension from €529 to €764 over five years, adjustments to actuarial reductions for those retiring early, the creation of new contributor categories and the treatment of people with investment income are decisions with major fiscal and social implications.
Society, however, cannot continue to learn about such changes through leaks and competing scenarios, as has happened in recent days.
The same applies to Provident Funds.
If they genuinely form part of the solution for ensuring adequate future pensions, then a serious dialogue is required.
The sharply opposing positions of social partners suggest otherwise.
Employers describe mandatory provident fund contributions as a "casus belli", while trade unions insist that the existence and operation of such funds are necessary.
Without agreement between the social partners, this issue risks becoming yet another source of social conflict.
The central question, therefore, is who will actually benefit from the reform currently being prepared.
That question has also been raised clearly by one of the country's main opposition parties, AKEL.
Put simply, it is not enough merely to announce pension increases.
Authorities must specify how many pensioners will meaningfully feel the impact of those increases in their daily lives and how many will continue to live at or near the poverty line.
That remains the most important test of Cyprus' pension reform.
