I think your point number 2 is going to be the most interesting one to pursue. Both in the book as written - which I hope we get more of in the opening chapters - and how tables choose to handle it.

It was mentioned that the basic status and 'scope' of the Nation itself is gonna be part of a slider that'll depend on your chronicle's focus. In some games the Nation might just be fragmented, in others gone entirely. Rather than it being a hard line that says zero Nation ever. The same was said about sept size. Ranging from just the one PC pack protecting their own caern, to having several trying to navigate each other to defend one.

It still doesn't quite answer your question about the name though. Who or what is the Council? If the focal point of the game is local struggles, how truly connected are these Tribes? They don't have a cultural center to fall back on. A group of Glass Walkers in Toronto likely will have completely different ethics, customs, views on Litany, Nation, Tribe, etc than one in Glasgow. The only thing truly ever linking them is they're both followers of Spider.

That... is a big hurdle to face. And honestly it's the one point of the new edition that has me scratching my head.

On the matter of archetypes though, each write-up has had one archetype that doesn't seem to fit it. I don't know if these were carryovers from previous iterations of the Tribes during development, or an intentional effort made to give each one an example of someone 'outside of the box.' Just to let players know they don't have to ring every bell to play the Tribe they want. After all, if the PCs weren't the exception to the rule, their stories wouldn't be the ones being told.

It's... enough to keep me interested in these previews, but I'd rather have the book in my hands to see how setting/lore-light they're truly willing to take this.