Is the conventional existence of 'a being' just an agreement?

It is said by the bhikkhuni Vajira:

“Just as, with an assemblage of parts, The word ‘chariot’ is used, So, when the aggregates exist, There is the convention ‘a being.’ SN 5.10

The pali translated as 'convention' is 'sammuti'. Looking at other places where the word 'sammuti' is used we can find numerous references in the theravada vinaya. Each of these translates the word 'sammuti' from pali to english as 'agreement' and not 'convention.' Is that all the conventional existence of 'a being' is - an agreement? Is 'a fist' an agreement? Is 'a lap' an agreement? Is 'the President of the United States' an agreement? Is 'rebirth' an agreement? It would seem some agreements are skillful and some are not. That is why the Buddha gave the vinaya, right? Do Noble Ones with Right View not understand agreements or somehow give up these agreements or do they just acknowledge that *all of these* are just agreements and not real and actual? It would seem to me that Noble Ones with Right View see that 'mother and father' is just an agreement to the same extent as 'this world' and 'the next world.' Right View does not utterly deny any of these; it simply acknowledges them for what they are and no more: useful agreements. UPDATE: This was too close to a seeded question. Although it was asked sincerely in that I was curious to know others responses (particular users on this site who I respect and admire) I do have my own idea of how I would answer this question so I should not have opened it out of mere curiosity. I was going to delete it given it goes against the site moderation guidelines, but then there are good answers and we are discouraged to delete questions where people have attempted to give good and thoughtful answers so I will leave it, but I do regret opening it in the first place.