Consider this: McCarthy is agreeing to some things in order to appease the Conservative members that are currently against him. Once the Conservative members are happy with what they're getting, they will vote for him and we will have Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy.
Then the House has to pass the Rules Package, which will include McCarthy's concessions. There has already been one Moderate who has said he's against the package. (Some Republican from Texas.) So, now that McCarthy is Speaker, the Conservative group has no leverage so McCarthy has to give back the concessions to appease the Moderates.
McCarthy wins.
I don't think it quite work this way. There are binding written agreements that carry the force of law that gets signed. Whatever the patriot insurgents have negotiated is signed as an agreement in exchange for their vote. The question is what has been agreed too and how will this benefit the American people versus special interests.
Excuse me for not belieivng that "the force of law" will be used against any member of congress.
That's reserved for us little people for stuff like walking into the capitol building.
An unwritten law taught in law school is for lawyers to always honor their agreements between other lawyers. This is because Judges see it as extremely bad behavior otherwise and a stain on the profession. The political circle of lawyers only tends to amplify this. It's a completely different story with an agreement between a client and a lawyer. Lawyers, being part of the 'club', are given much greater latitude to screw over the client. In the political circle of lawyers it only amplifies this latitude.