The phrase "agreement group" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to refer to a collective of individuals or entities that have come together to reach a consensus or mutual understanding on a specific issue or topic.
Example: "The agreement group met last week to finalize the terms of the contract."
Alternatives: "consensus group" or "coalition of agreement".
In this Agreement, "Group" shall mean the companies controlling, controlled by or in current control with GNM.
Russia failed to show-up for a meeting with the so-called Budapest agreement group, which involves Washington, London, Moscow and Kiev.
11.41am GMT US secretary of state John Kerry told reporters that "regrettably" Russia had not appeared for a meeting of the so-called Budapest agreement group, which involves Washington, London, Moscow and Kiev.
The Budapest agreement group was created to assure Kiev's security after it renounced nuclear weapons in the 1990s and the US and Britain had hoped to bring the two disputing parties together.
Kerry said that "regrettably" one member – Russia – had failed to appear for a meeting of the so-called Budapest agreement group, which guaranteed Ukraine's borders after it renounced nuclear weapons in the 1990s.
That achieved, South America would be able to present a common front in negotiations with the North American Free Trade Agreement group, whose members are the United States, Mexico and Canada, over a hemispheric trade accord the United States wants in place by 2005.
A sidebar to the North American Free Trade Agreement (grouping those two countries plus Mexico) calls for almost total transparency in the way rows are settled.
Central to this is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an ambitious free-trade agreement grouping members of the North American Free-Trade Area with Asian countries, including now Japan.
But the pro-trade agreement groups have risen to the challenge, Wallach said.
Not surprisingly, concordant diabetics (CDs) and concordant non-diabetics (CNDs), respectively, yield the highest and lowest percentage of clinical diabetes (A1c ≥ 6.5), respectively (CDs: 45.7; CNDs: 3.5) among the four possible agreement groups.
In the nonseminoma analysis, the levels of statistical significance were somewhat attenuated in the high-agreement group, but the differences were too slight to reject the results of the main analysis, especially given that the post hoc analysis was based on smaller numbers due to stratification.
