Indeed, the way the group will choose to address the issue of the very term ‘fragility’ might be key for its capacity to face internal and external problems. Internally, the term still finds rebuke, especially among African countries; internal debates and whole-of-government approaches can help foster a consensus. These would, in addition, address the need to invest in diversifying the image of the leadership that is convened, inviting more active participation on the part of all members. Timor-Leste has offered remarkable leadership but clearly now needs others to step up; moreover, the group would benefit from actively showing their agenda is common and shared. Externally, ‘fragility’ faces difficulties dialoguing with the universality and indivisibility encouraged by the 2030 Agenda. The g7+ might want to address this challenge in a more direct way, positioning itself in terms of what being fragile means in this scenario; indeed, valuing their own expertise would be smart now that ‘peace’ is everywhere. However, at the same time, the group needs to seek quality partnerships where they can be found; this expertise, therefore, should not isolate the g7+ but, on the contrary, serve to foment complementarity.