I think it is solomonic indeed. Clearly, the healing must start where the rift began, and so a reversion to the original Creed is logical. Then the Latin Chruch should make a theological case for the dual procession of the holy Ghost, and then a separate case needs to be made to incorporate it to the Creed.
It is possible that the dual procession will end up as a theological hypothesis, rather than defined dogma, even though I personally believe in it and think that Aquinas made a very strong case for it. Most likely, it should be carefully explained with the "through the Son" semantic, which would be consistent with the Damascene's root-branch-fruit image, but preserve the monarchy of the Father.
I am not sure if that is possible, annalex. I don't think the Orthodox Church knows such a concept as "theological hypothesis." Some Fathers, as is well known, have engaged in some teachings that did not withstand the divine guidance of General Councils, yet they were not considered heretics. So, there is some flexibility, a range of concepts within the Church that are not out of bounds, especially when we are dealing with Divine Mysteries which are beyond our comprehension.
But wat the Church absolutely must do is remove any ambiguity as to what our understanding of the Holy Trinity is. We cannot be of one faith if there is a shadow of a doubt that dual procession is somehow detrimental to the Monarchy of the Father and, even to the Divine Economy.
If an Ecumenical Council reaches a conclusion and an agreement on this issue to re-word the Symbol of Faith, which is perfectly within its jurisdiction, and which is binding on all members of the Church, then we shall all profess one and the same Creed, and our intercommunion will be restored -- because communion is not a means to, but an expression of unity, which is why at this point we (still) cannot share in the Eucharist.