I am reading the paper "Mori Dream Spaces and GIT" by Hu and Keel.
https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0004017
I cannot understand the proof of Lemma 1.6 in it.
Let $X$ be a normal projective variety. Assume that $D$ is a divisor on $X$ such that $R(X,D) = \bigoplus_{m \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ge0} } H^0(X,\mathcal{O}_X(mD))$ is finitely generated.
Lemma 1.6 states that the natural rational map $\varphi_D \colon X \dashrightarrow Y := Proj(R(X,D))$ is a rational contraction, i.e, there exits a resolution $\Phi \colon \tilde{X} \to Y$ of $\varphi_D$ such that $\Phi_*(\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{X}} (E)) \simeq \mathcal{O}_Y$ for any effective exceptional divisor $E$. Moreover, $D$ can be written as $ D = \varphi_D^*(A) + F $ for an ample divisor $A$ on $Y$ and a $\varphi_D$-fixed divisor $F$.
Outline of the proof of the paper is as follows:
(1) The finite generation of $R(X,D)$ implies that $D$ can be written as $D = M+F$ for a movable divisor $M$ and an effective divisor $F$ such that $Sym_k(H^0(X,M)) \to H^0(X,kM)$ is surjective and $H^0(X,kM) \to H^0(X,kM +rF)$ is an isomorphism for any $k>0$ and $r>0$ after replacing $D$ by its multiple.
(2) After taking appropriate resolution, we may assume that $\varphi_D$ is a regular and $M = \varphi_D^* A $. Now we can see $F$ is $\varphi_D$-fixed by the isoromorphism $H^0(X,kM) \simeq H^0(X,kM +rF)$.
Here is my question :
[1] How can wee see that $\varphi_D$ is a rational contraction? Is it a well-known result?
[2] Why does the isomorphism $H^0(X,kM) \simeq H^0(X,kM +rF)$ implies that $F$ is $\varphi_D$-fixed?
Can anyone who understands these results answer my questions?