To be fair there are more issues at hand. How we are to reconcile the Orthodox repudiation of Florence with the Catholic belief that Florence is an Ecumenical Council is one of them, and definite proof that the schism is real.
Unless you can point to and/or name the elephant, no, you can't.
Really? I have. Others have. It is hardly a secret. Simply because it annoys you does not make it any less a reality of our Churches in this schismatic status which we attribute to one another.
The excommunications between the EO and RCC were repealed in 1965. What schism?
The road map is there in the papers of the academics. It is a given among them that were organic unity to be reestablished, that Rome would overtly, or tacitly, acknowledge that her councils post 1054 were General Synods of the Western Church and that much of what she promulgated therein were merely theological opinions rather than dogmatic proclamation. Easier said than done however. There are some eighth and ninth century understandings, pre-Charlamagne, which could serve as a road map but again, easier said than done given the course history has taken. At a minimum, Rome would retain some sort of jurisdiction over the historically western church while acknowledging her role as Primus (to be fully defined however in ancient terms) among the ancient sees would not grant her privileges of universality over the churches of the east. Easier said than done.
Polemicists and apologists, west and east, have done much to convince us of the vastness of the divide over other issues, but, in time, most could be reconciled .
Such a unity would result in a 'true' Roman Church who would separate from Rome in schism as well as various 'true' Orthodox communities who would separate from the body of what is now canonical Orthodoxy. Whether such 'unity' is worth further divide is another serious issue. Preserving the status quo with a closer level of respect and understanding may be best end result that continuing dialogue can accomplish for the short and medium term.