Was Married at First Sight UK an accident waiting to happen?
There are wider questions to be answered as a result of the serious allegations made by three women who took part in the show of rape and sexual assault.
These include whether the police will investigate - the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has said the allegations "must be investigated" - and whether the regulator Ofcom will look further at safeguarding in reality TV.
Broadly - are the welfare rules strong enough overall in the UK?
The claims have put Channel 4 in the spotlight, not just over its safeguarding processes but also its finances - and perhaps even its future during a period where advertising revenues have slumped across the board.
CPL, the production company behind the hit show which is regularly watched by more than three million people, is also under pressure with many questions still unanswered.
Channel 4 has said it commissioned an external review last month of welfare on the show "after being presented with serious allegations of wrongdoing".
CPL says its welfare protocols are industry-leading, and that it acted appropriately in all these cases.
Since the Panorama investigation went out, we have been contacted directly by a number of former Married at First Sight UK cast members raising concerns.
On social media some former cast members have expressed their support for the women who have spoken out and called for action, although others have said their experiences were positive.
According to the women, some allegations were raised during or shortly after filming, but episodes were still aired. Critics are questioning whether warnings were acted on quickly enough.
Channel 4 says that when concerns related to contributor welfare were raised, "prompt and appropriate action was taken, based on the information available at the time" adding it "strongly refutes any claim to the contrary".
It says it was only made aware of a rape allegation once the series had gone out and "it would be wrong to criticise decisions it and CPL made based on knowledge they did not have at the time".
In 2021, MAFS UK changed its format, bringing in dinner parties and more socialising (and drinking) instead of the original more documentary-style format.
Did that compound problems around a programme whose USP, critics argue, creates inherent risk?
As the chair of the Culture Media and Sport Committee, Caroline Dinenage MP, characterised it, when people are expected to share a bed and a life straight after meeting "it almost feels like an accident waiting to happen".
CPL says its welfare processes are the "gold standard", Channel 4 says the programme has "robust" welfare systems including background checks, daily check-ins and psychological support.
But if former participants say those protections failed them, it begs the question whether any safeguarding could ensure abuse is prevented in a programme of this kind?
Jess Phillips MP, the former safeguarding minister, said that MAFS wasn't simply "fraught with risk, but free will and consent are difficult to ensure when contracts and expectations are at play, let alone the barriers for disclosure that shame and fear create".
She added that it appeared that "even when the welfare procedures were triggered, they did not result in substantive action, nor was there a sense of curiosity".
Channel 4's CEO Priya Dogra said that "when concerns about contributor welfare were raised, and based on the information available at the time, Channel 4 acted quickly, appropriately, sensitively and with wellbeing front and centre".
It previously told the BBC the allegations were "wholly uncorroborated" and Dogra expressed "sympathy" with the alleged victims of rape and unconsensual sex. She said she had launched an investigation when the BBC shared its story with Channel 4 last month.
But Channel 4 has led the way on exposing allegations of sexual abuse, with its Bafta-nominated Russell Brand: In Plain Sight. Brand has since been charged with a number of cases of rape and sexual assault, which he denies.
In the case of MAFS UK, Channel 4 will no doubt be taking legal advice about what it can say, when allegations are unproven - and apparently denied by the men involved - but "sympathy" may not wash.
The forthcoming series (the 11th in the UK) has already been filmed and is due to air in the autumn. Producers will be mindful of the participants who gave up their time and will want the fame that comes with appearing in the programme.
But the pressure on that new show is intensifying and its release is surely by no means certain, not least because its main sponsor has paused its involvement. But if the show was axed, what would replace such a popular format that brings in crucial younger audiences and provides more than 30 hours of output in every series?
We know the precarious nature of public service media companies whose traditional economic model relied on funding from advertising which has fallen dramatically in recent years.
Channel 4's nadir was back in 2023 when its accounts showed a £52m deficit. It has been pivoting to digital but, as many other media companies and individuals are discovering, it is hard to monetise digital revenues in the way they could previously rely on advertising.
Its latest financial figures will be published on Wednesday.
