Without further and better context, I suppose it means that the wording (formula) of recital 41 was agreed as a compromise between differing views among the parties (presumably representatives of EU countries) who drafted it.
This is how EU rules are made. Specialists from 27 countries speaking 20-odd languages sit around a table to agree the wording of new EU legislation. Each of them has his or her own ideas and, to a certain extent, national interests to represent. They agree wording that allows each of them to go home and say that they got the deal they wanted, or at least something close to it.
As a result, the wording of the new rule is rather meaningless, and it is left to the European Court of Justice (which has, of course, its own 'harmonizing' agenda) to interpret it.