The lede is supposed to summarize and explain the article. The FRUS section contains explanations of the resolution with regard to the meaning of the land for peace and withdrawal provisions. Those are not necessarily limited to "efforts to draft the resolution". For example, the US commitment regarding "territorial integrity" included promises to use its good offices to obtain the return of the West Bank to Jordan with minor boundary rectifications, and etc.  

 As for OR, the Georgetown symposium sponsored by the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy is already cited, but there is no mention that Lord Caradon remarked that Israel was in clear defiance of resolution 242. He specifically cited the annexation of East Jerusalem and the creeping colonialism on the West Bank, in Gaza, and in the Golan as examples. 

 William B. Quandt cites the 67 FRUS  volume XIX and says the Israeli's had officially made it clear that they did not intend to expand their borders as a result of the war. He says that the US did not endorse Israel holding the occupied territories indefinately, but rather that they be exchanged for peace. He also quotes Dean Rusk's book "As I Saw It", page 389 which said "we never contemplated any significant grant of territory to Israel as a result of the June 1967 war." The same footnote mentions Goldberg's November 3, 1967 commitment to Hussein, and the fact that in 1968 Israel authorized US Ambassador George Ball to tell King Hussein that it was willing to return the West Bank to his authority. see pages 44-50 and the footnotes on pages 442-444, Peace process: American diplomacy and the Arab-Israeli conflict since 1967", University of California Press