In A Churchgoer's Guide to the Anglican Communion Covenant by Fulcrum (it does have the ability to make some statements) it states, early on:
Fulcrum has consistently supported the covenant but is aware that there is little accessible material explaining it. As a result, many people are relatively uninformed or are being misinformed about it and its significance by some opponents.
Crumbs! I mean St. Mundsed Bury with Vinegar is one of the few dioceses where they had a presentation of a 'no' point of view. It's as if any presentation of a 'no' point if view is to misinform. But look at this sentence:
There are two main alternative visions competing with the covenant - GAFCON’s more narrowly defined confessional approach and the path of unaccountable independence through unilateral innovation. Despite their fundamental differences, these minority views may unite in rejecting the covenant which is much more recognisably Anglican than both of them.
Indeed they may, probably because they are more than minority views when it comes to informing ordinary folk in synods what is involved and then asking for a vote. The actual debate on Fulcrum itself isn't consistent in support.