docs(maker-platform): close Tier-2 PR-FAQ gaps + evolve referral model (negotiable rewards, ranking-neutrality)

PR-FAQ (Tier-2 reviewer gaps):
- Shopify-copies-the-tool: first-class-not-hard framing + cuttle.xyz/LLM-tool
  integration headroom; 'tool is the wedge, network is the moat'
- featured maker's (B-side) consent + economics
- ballpark F (~$75-150k/yr) and the 'F is not the cloud bill' reliability core
- operational drop-time reliability (blast radius + funded core)

Referral-model evolution (PR-FAQ + memo, source-of-truth reconciled):
- platform spread stays FIXED (~3-5%, $-capped) — the network's referral
  revenue line, unchanged in §12
- Maker A's reward becomes NEGOTIABLE above the spread (flat/tiered/max-$ cap,
  renegotiable), floored at the spread; maker<->maker only
- per-relationship approval: B must approve being curated by A
- ranking-neutrality as a STRUCTURAL guarantee: platform ranks for conversion
  but never by referral economics, credible because its spread is constant
- non-maker taste-makers keep uniform, non-biddable rates (peer-respect
  counterweight absent)

Memo ports: §2 (first-class/cuttle), §7 Curated-By guardrails + Referral
economics + catalog-presence + taste-maker tier, §7 partner comp, §12 spread
+ Goodhart guardrails.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

docs/maker-platform-strategy.md

@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ Build for **independent makers** — positioned as "the curated maker marketplac
 
 Two halves, treated differently:
 
-- **Commitment-commerce engine (the real product).** The maker-native cadence layer Shopify lacks: scheduled drops, pre-orders and deposits, raffle/queue allocation, made-to-order workflows, recurring clubs/memberships, digital-file delivery + licensing where relevant, and variant/bundle handling. This *is* the gnarly 20% and the reason vertical infrastructure here is defensible — emphatically *not* "the same as Shopify." (The white-label storefront is the commodity surface, subsumed here: build the least of it you can, rent the rest.)
+- **Commitment-commerce engine (the real product).** The maker-native cadence layer Shopify lacks: scheduled drops, pre-orders and deposits, raffle/queue allocation, made-to-order workflows, recurring clubs/memberships, digital-file delivery + licensing where relevant, and variant/bundle handling. This *is* the gnarly 20% and the reason vertical infrastructure here is defensible — emphatically *not* "the same as Shopify." The defensibility isn't that the cadence is *hard* to build — it's that **no continuous (non-campaign) platform treats it as a first-class citizen**, so the table-stakes go uncovered everywhere outside the Kickstarter-likes (Appendix B); being its first-class home is also the on-ramp to integrating emerging generative/LLM maker tools (e.g. **cuttle.xyz**) that campaign platforms and stock storefronts have no reason to touch. (The white-label storefront is the commodity surface, subsumed here: build the least of it you can, rent the rest.)
 - **Cross-maker demand network (the moat).** The flow asset, accruing as a *byproduct* of the engine. Every drop/pre-order captures a buyer who *follows* a maker and commits early; a base of drop-followers across many makers is the embryonic cross-merchant identity network — the niche-scoped Shop Pay equivalent. Stock commerce gives you people who bought once; commitment commerce gives you people who *wait for* makers and commit ahead — a far stronger flow asset. Reputation-staked cross-maker curation turns that into *earned* demand, not just relocated demand.
 
 The reframe: commitment commerce is not a feature of the storefront — it *is* the platform, and the mechanism that builds the flow moat, rather than something engineered separately alongside it.
@@ -152,7 +152,8 @@ Model A is reputation-staked human curation (the anti-pollution, can't-be-gamed
 **Guardrails:**
 
 - **Attribution is stateless — no identity layer required.** A signed referral token (origin maker + item + expiry + nonce) rides the A→B handoff into B's order; you read it to bill B and credit A. It tracks the *referral path*, not the buyer, so it works in Phase 1 for guests and sovereign makers. Persistent identity is only for the *durable* effects (follows, cross-session credit).
-- **Commission-corruption trap.** When Curated-By pays well, curation drifts to "feature whoever converts/pays most." Keep it reputation-staked: cap how much any maker can feature, make it visibly personal (name + face), prefer "A owns/uses this," and never sell slots. The sincere vouch is the whole value.
+- **Commission-corruption trap.** When Curated-By pays well, curation drifts to "feature whoever converts/pays most." Keep it reputation-staked: **B must approve being curated by A** (per-relationship opt-in — placement is consented on both sides, distinct from the default-on *catalog presence* switch below), cap how much any maker can feature, make it visibly personal (name + face), prefer "A owns/uses this," and never sell slots. The sincere vouch is the whole value.
+- **Ranking neutrality — structural, not a promise.** Among the items a maker curates, the *platform* chooses which to surface to a given buyer, and it **will** use algorithms (personalization, popularity) to lift conversions — that's the platform's job. The guarantee is that **referral economics are never an input to that ranking**, and it holds *by construction*: the platform's spread is the **same percentage no matter which referred item sells** ("Referral economics" below), so the platform has no incentive to favor a higher-paying referral. Structural indifference is a *stronger* guarantee than a flat uniform rate — it survives makers negotiating their own rewards.
 - **Complementary, not substitute.** Nudge toward complementary makers (a maker surfaces an adjacent craft, not a direct rival) — complementary curation is generative; substitute curation is cannibalistic and makers won't do it.
 
 ### How the platform gets paid
@@ -163,10 +164,10 @@ Out of the money flow, your fee is a **platform fee billed in arrears via ACH/in
 - **Charge on captured/fulfilled orders, not pledges** — don't bill money that never cleared.
 - **Market the all-in transparently:** "our fee + your own processor ≈ X% vs Etsy's ~20%." Not bundling processing is the wedge — say it in numbers.
 
-**Referral economics.** On a referred order, charge Maker B a **referral fee** (≈15%, Faire/Amazon-Handmade convention) and *independently* credit Maker A. Keep them as **two separate events** — B→Platform (a fee on B's invoice) and Platform→A (a credit you extend) — so you're **principal on both sides, never a conduit** moving money B→A. That independence keeps it out of money-transmission territory, and holds *only* while A's credit is non-cashable.
+**Referral economics.** On a referred order, two layers stack. **The platform's spread is fixed and never negotiated** — ≈3–5% of the order (it may scale with the sale and carry a $ cap), the network's one piece of referral revenue, and *the same percentage regardless of which referred item sells* — which is what makes the ranking-neutrality guarantee structural rather than a promise ("Curated By This Maker" above). **Maker A's reward sits above the spread and is the makers' to set:** A and B negotiate it through platform tooling — a flat %, a tiered rate ("x% over $y"), a max-$ cap — and may **renegotiate** as the relationship evolves, with one floor, the spread. So B always pays *at least* the spread; set A's reward to zero and no referral money changes hands while the platform still earns its spread. (This negotiability is **scoped to maker↔maker** referrals; the pure non-maker taste-maker tier keeps **uniform, non-biddable** rates — it lacks the peer-respect counterweight — see "Non-maker referrers" below.) Keep the legs as **two separate events** — B→Platform (a fee on B's invoice) and Platform→A (a credit you extend) — so you're **principal on both sides, never a conduit** moving money B→A. That independence keeps it out of money-transmission territory, and holds *only* while A's credit is non-cashable.
 
-- The referral fee **subsumes** the standard fee on referred orders (one clean "15% because referred"), rather than stacking toward Etsy-like ~19%.
-- **B's fee and A's credit are independent numbers; the spread is platform margin** (e.g., charge B 15%, credit A 10–12%, keep 3–5%) — one of the few places the network itself generates revenue.
+- The referred order's total **subsumes** the standard fee (one clean "this is the referred rate"), rather than stacking toward Etsy-like ~19%.
+- **The fixed spread is the network's referral revenue line** (≈3–5%, $-capped) — not negotiable, and the *same percentage whatever is referred*; A's negotiated reward is the layer on top, non-cashable (below). One of the few places the network itself generates revenue.
 - **Non-cashable fee-offset wallet.** A's credit draws down *future platform fees first* — driving the curation flywheel ("curate → wipe out your fees"), lowering collection risk, and cleaner on tax (a fee discount, not income). **Cashing out re-opens the money-flow door** (rent BaaS — Connect/Treasury/Dwolla); a deliberate Phase-2 crossing, not a toggle.
 - **Pending → cleared settlement.** Credit A as *pending* (not spendable) and hold B's fee pending; settle **both legs together** after B's refund window (≈14–30 days) closes, so in-window refunds void both atomically with zero clawback. Negative balances are a debit on a continuing account: reverse pending, then available, then push any shortfall to the next ACH invoice; keep the ACH mandate active through offboarding; a rolling reserve only if a few high-volume curators make it material.
 
@@ -183,7 +184,7 @@ Out of the money flow, your fee is a **platform fee billed in arrears via ACH/in
 
 **Opt-in network model — carrot, not stick.** It self-selects the commons-minded makers the network works for. The benefit must be **concentrated and visibly fast** or opt-in becomes a ghost town. Keep the asymmetry **additive** (joiners get referral income, placement, cross-promotion, fee offset, feed surfacing) — never **punitive** (don't cripple the standalone storefront to force joining). Design for **granular** participation, **reciprocity** (surfacing proportional to participation), and a **social-proof opt-in moment** ("makers you respect sent each other 200 buyers last month — want in?").
 
-**Don't bundle "on our storefront ⇒ on the network."** Forcing full network participation on storefront makers is the coercion the opt-in model rules out, and it weakens the storefront's standalone (n=1) value. Split two switches: **catalog presence** (your products *can* be discovered/curated/fed) is reasonable to **default-on (opt-out)** for storefront makers (low-friction, low-sensitivity); **buyer-identity participation** (your *buyers* are recognized cross-maker) stays a **separate, consent-gated opt-in** (sovereignty-sensitive, and it's the buyer's data). Take the convenience (auto-catalog-sync); never the coercion (forced identity sharing).
+**Don't bundle "on our storefront ⇒ on the network."** Forcing full network participation on storefront makers is the coercion the opt-in model rules out, and it weakens the storefront's standalone (n=1) value. Split two switches: **catalog presence** (your products *can* be discovered/curated/fed) is reasonable to **default-on (opt-out)** for storefront makers (low-friction, low-sensitivity) — though being *featured in a specific maker's Curated-By* (a vouch carrying referral economics) is a **per-relationship opt-in** the featured maker approves (§7, "Curated By This Maker"); **buyer-identity participation** (your *buyers* are recognized cross-maker) stays a **separate, consent-gated opt-in** (sovereignty-sensitive, and it's the buyer's data). Take the convenience (auto-catalog-sync); never the coercion (forced identity sharing).
 
 **Why this is the defensible core.** Shopify *won't* build cross-merchant shared identity — its customers (sovereignty-seeking DTC merchants) would experience it as the platform claiming their buyers, betraying the exact promise Shopify sells. Shopify does the *resell* network (share *products*) but not the *referral* network (share *buyers* with attribution). Your bet: community-embedded makers relate to shared identity as *belonging*, not theft. The moat isn't the storefront, the commitment-commerce mechanics, or the resell network (Shopify has that) — it's the **cross-maker identity-and-attribution layer**, the one asset an island-based incumbent is fenced out of by its own positioning.
 
@@ -261,7 +262,7 @@ Any website can join as a *referrer* — a taste-maker/curator (a hobby YouTuber
 - **Unverified referrer (open tier).** Generates referral links to verified makers, earns on conversion, but is **not surfaced in any trust-dependent surface** — a traffic source, self-limiting (a bad one doesn't convert) and contained (can't touch trust surfaces).
 - **Verified taste-maker (trust tier).** A legitimate community voice verified as a *trusted curator* (not a maker), reputation-staked and slashable — badge, surfacing, loses status for shilling. Verification separates the genuine taste-maker (additive) from the affiliate-spam farm (corrosive).
 
-**The load-bearing guardrail: uniform, non-biddable referral rates.** A maker-curator's commission pull is counterbalanced by peer respect; a pure taste-maker's incentive is more purely the fee, so if makers could set different rates, taste-makers would chase the highest payer — retail media through the referrer door. A uniform rate means they feature on **taste, not who pays most.** Plus **disclosure/labeling** (distinguish a maker's peer vouch from a taste-maker's disclosed-affiliate pick; FTC-required anyway), **referrer-only/one-directional** (never a destination, never a maker-verifier), and the **no-walled-garden rule** still holds.
+**The load-bearing guardrail for this tier: uniform, non-biddable referral rates.** A maker-curator's commission pull is counterbalanced by peer respect (and the structural ranking-neutrality guarantee), which is why **maker↔maker rewards are negotiable above the fixed spread** (§7, "Referral economics"). A pure taste-maker's incentive is more purely the fee, so that same negotiability would let them chase the highest payer — retail media through the referrer door. **For non-maker taste-makers, therefore, rates stay uniform and non-biddable** — they feature on **taste, not who pays most.** Plus **disclosure/labeling** (distinguish a maker's peer vouch from a taste-maker's disclosed-affiliate pick; FTC-required anyway), **referrer-only/one-directional** (never a destination, never a maker-verifier), and the **no-walled-garden rule** still holds.
 
 **Why it's worth doing:** taste-makers are the **net-new-demand engine** the maker-only network is structurally weak at — a third source alongside maker-curation (deepens) and agents (reach), and the most community-native (a trusted human voice, not an algorithm).
 
@@ -316,7 +317,7 @@ Now that Medusa exists and the network federates over any storefront, *centering
 
 Implementation consultants (community-embedded especially) onboard the **high-touch tail** without the network becoming a services business, doubling as community-aligned distribution and mirroring the partner ecosystems that grew Shopify and Medusa — a second flywheel you *enable* (certification, a directory, the referral-income share below) but don't *staff*. Guardrails: keep the product **genuinely self-serve for the median maker** (if makers *need* a consultant for a basic store, the product failed and partners are masking it), and structure partners as **referral/implementation partners, not white-label resellers**, so they don't become the relationship-owner and disintermediate you.
 
-**How partners are paid — a negotiated, tapering share of the maker's *earned* referral income.** A maker may opt to bring on a partner to stand up their storefront and onboard them onto the referral network, and pay for that help out of the upside it creates: the partner earns a **share of the referral income the maker earns *as a curator*** (the 10–12% Curated-By credits in "Referral economics" above) — not a fee on the maker's sales, and not a cut of the platform's spread. The natural shape is **front-loaded and tapering** — e.g. 100% of the maker's first $X in referral earnings to the partner, then a declining share as the maker's curation takes off — a *help-me-start, earn-out* deal, not a perpetual tax. The two negotiate and structure the schedule through **platform tooling**; the network stores the agreed terms and settles the split. This is the *one* partner-compensation leg the network touches, and it rides the same invariants as the rest of the money model, so it adds posture, not exposure:
+**How partners are paid — a negotiated, tapering share of the maker's *earned* referral income.** A maker may opt to bring on a partner to stand up their storefront and onboard them onto the referral network, and pay for that help out of the upside it creates: the partner earns a **share of the referral income the maker earns *as a curator*** (the negotiated Curated-By referral reward in "Referral economics" above) — not a fee on the maker's sales, and not a cut of the platform's spread. The natural shape is **front-loaded and tapering** — e.g. 100% of the maker's first $X in referral earnings to the partner, then a declining share as the maker's curation takes off — a *help-me-start, earn-out* deal, not a perpetual tax. The two negotiate and structure the schedule through **platform tooling**; the network stores the agreed terms and settles the split. This is the *one* partner-compensation leg the network touches, and it rides the same invariants as the rest of the money model, so it adds posture, not exposure:
 
 - **Out of the flow, principal on both sides.** The platform never routes the maker's money to the partner (that is custody / transmission — Appendix C.2's line); it independently *reduces* the maker's referral credit and *extends* the partner a credit or payout — two events, principal on each, never a conduit (the §7 referral-economics pattern).
 - **A fourth consumer of the one Phase-2 cashable rail.** The maker's referral credit is non-cashable (fee-offset); a partner who isn't itself a maker has no platform fees to offset, so — exactly like the verified taste-maker and the kit pure-supplier — it needs *cashable* payout over the same scoped Connect/mass-pay crossing Phase 2 already builds. (A partner who *is* a maker can take non-cashable wallet credit instead.) One more rider on that crossing, not new money plumbing; Phase 1 can accrue the partner's split as *pending* and pay it on rail launch.
@@ -505,7 +506,7 @@ Per the decision above, this is a **parametric** model: the fee *rates* are desi
 **Two revenue lines, both from §7.**
 
 - **Subscription.** Cold-start makers pay Starter (≈2–4% of captured GMV, no/low monthly); at scale they auto-graduate to Pro (flat **$29–49/mo**, 0%). The flat Pro fee is the *predictable* margin; the Starter percentage is cold-start-friendly but thin on low-GMV makers.
-- **Referral spread.** On a referred order, Maker B pays ≈15% and Maker A is credited 10–12%; the **spread (≈3–5%) is platform margin** (§7, "Referral economics"). But A's credit is a *non-cashable draw against A's own future platform fees* — so a referral credit is **foregone future fee revenue**, not free money. The model must net it: referral activity generates spread *and* erodes subscription/fee revenue as credits are drawn. Treat the credit as a cost line, not a wash.
+- **Referral spread.** On a referred order the platform takes a **fixed ≈3–5% spread** (the network's referral revenue line), and Maker A earns a **negotiated reward above it** (§7, "Referral economics"). The spread is the platform margin modeled here; A's reward is a *non-cashable draw against A's own future platform fees* — so it is **foregone future fee revenue**, not free money. The model must net it: referral activity generates spread *and* erodes subscription/fee revenue as credits are drawn. Treat the credit as a cost line, not a wash.
 
 **A note on partner-network splits.** Where a maker pays a partner out of its earned referral income (§7, "Partner / consultant network"), the split **redistributes the maker's curator income, not the platform's spread** — the platform stays principal on both legs and its 3–5% margin is unchanged. So partner comp does not move the platform's break-even directly; it is **maker-borne activation cost, paid from the upside**, that lowers the friction of turning a maker into an *active referrer*. Model it as a driver of the referral-activation rate (and thus of the North Star, below), not as a platform cost line.
 
@@ -569,7 +570,7 @@ The §9 gates are all qualitative — *do makers refer you? is the pain consiste
 
 **The order-history asset computes all of this for free.** §7 already commits it: *"One asset, three uses — the same order history powers the referral ledger, the network-health metrics, and this reporting."* The cross-tenant vantage is the only place cross-maker-referred GMV and cross-maker repeat *can* be computed — no single-store tool sees across stores (which is itself moat-deepening, §7). So these metrics are not new instrumentation to fund; they fall out of the ledger the referral system already requires.
 
-**Goodhart caution — the metric must measure *earned* referral.** A North Star is a target, and a target invites gaming. The corrupt way to lift "cross-maker-referred GMV" is to *manufacture* referrals — pay for placement, juice the slots — which is precisely the retail-media drift §3 and §7 ("Curated By This Maker") exist to forbid. The North Star is only valid as a measure of **reputation-staked, earned** cross-referral; optimized the wrong way it rebuilds Etsy's pollution from the inside, through the dashboard. This is the OHM **value** point in metric form: the number must track real value to buyers and makers, not gamed volume — so pair the North Star with the §7 anti-corruption guardrails (uniform non-biddable rates, capped per-maker featuring, reputation on the line) rather than reading it naked.
+**Goodhart caution — the metric must measure *earned* referral.** A North Star is a target, and a target invites gaming. The corrupt way to lift "cross-maker-referred GMV" is to *manufacture* referrals — pay for placement, juice the slots — which is precisely the retail-media drift §3 and §7 ("Curated By This Maker") exist to forbid. The North Star is only valid as a measure of **reputation-staked, earned** cross-referral; optimized the wrong way it rebuilds Etsy's pollution from the inside, through the dashboard. This is the OHM **value** point in metric form: the number must track real value to buyers and makers, not gamed volume — so pair the North Star with the §7 anti-corruption guardrails (structural ranking-neutrality — the platform's spread is constant, so its algorithms ignore referral economics; capped per-maker featuring; per-relationship approval; reputation on the line; uniform rates for non-maker taste-makers) rather than reading it naked.
 
 ### Volunteer-sustainability economics — funding the critical core off bus-factor-one