I'll agree to that last as well: I'm often surprised by the weakness in some of the language. For example, was I ever surprised when we tested the NFC in C2K with my very own job!

I suspect it's like any deal you negotiate: the true value of terms isn't always completely apparent until years later. I bought an extended warranty on our minivan. It's going to take a long while to tell if it was a good deal, or not.

So any contract has a bunch of fluff, items that are theoretically a huge improvement, based on the cliffnotes, assuming the economic environment and company finances hold up. But when a true test-to-press occurs, some work as intended, some do not. Some of these are better viewed as a weak insurance policy, than an iron-clad guarantee. I don't think this is a product of who negotiates. I think we have the appropriate professionals in the room. And even a Jerry Maguire would negotiate a bunch of fluff, to see what sticks.

Which is what makes it critically important to:
1) Have simple, clear, strong language in the most essential clauses.
2) Be informed, and involved, and not distracted by noise and/or any selling.
3) Compare the end product to your own initial requirements.
4) Ask questions, but be critical. Lean towards basing your consideration of a particular section on what it says, not an explanation of how it "should work".
5) Accept the fact that some of what you're getting is fluff, and learn to assign a value to that fluff based on the probability it will work out, not a certainty.