Policy_Contract_Business diagram - some questions

[michael.poulin@uk.fid-intl.com]

Hi Folks,
I guess you are having fun... at the F2F

I have (finally) looked at Policy_Contract_Business, posted recently, and would like to comment it. 

The Policy_Contract_Business diagram demonstrates a few things I do not catch:
1) what does mean a Policy contains many Propositions? Is it because this is the only way (?) to specify the state of the Policy? What does mean a Proposition gets satisfied in the State?
2) what particular architectural value a State adds to the Proposition or to a Policy if there are no constraints represented based on the State value (Private/Public)? This seems as incomplete a little.
3) the most problematic to me is the absence of relationship between a Contract and a Policy. If Proposition is interpreted as an "instance" of a Contract (which in such case becomes just a Contract Template), I think, I get it. That is, the Contract and the Policies are now in one document. (However, what the architectural difference a Public or Private Contract makes? Isn't this a security concern rather than architecture's one?). However, if you have different meaning for the Proposition, I certainly have a problem with it. 
For these days, I am working on the XML Schema for the Service Contract for my organisation and, after a few energetic discussions, I have to say that we came up with a Contract Template which allows a reference to the Policy (in a Policy Repository) as well as a direct Policy inclusion in the actual Contract (aka Contract instance). 
4) once again, if the Proposition in the diagram is a Contract instance, why we do not name it an Agreement?

Thank you,
- Michael