docs(maker-platform): flag the audit's unaddressed gaps as honest backlog items (memo §14 + PR-FAQ)

Gap-analysis pass surfaced genuine, *unacknowledged* holes in both docs.
Rather than invent legal/strategy positions, flag them as scoped open work
in the memo's §14 backlog (matching its style) and acknowledge them in the
PR-FAQ's 'what got left out' answer:
- international tax & cross-border (EU VAT/OSS, deemed-supplier, PSD2/SCA,
  KYC/OFAC) — the US-only §11 has a real hole under a digital-heavy global
  beachhead
- infosec & breach posture for the cross-tenant graph (belongs in the §12
  funded reliability core)
- content moderation beyond authenticity (third-party IP / DMCA)
- verification *methodology* (the evidentiary act, treated as a primitive)
- support/dispute operations as a funded F-term
- competitive engagement vs creator-commerce tools (Gumroad/Payhip/Ko-fi/
  Fourthwall/Lemon Squeezy)
- plus lower-priority notes (cuttle substance, catalog-sync at scale,
  accessibility, certification mark, wind-down plan, team capacity)

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

docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md

@@ -785,7 +785,14 @@ cost. It's the hedge against the buyer feed's deliberate weakness at net-new rea
 The memo's full depth on trust-&-safety/accountability (§10), the complete
 legal/compliance analysis (§11), composite multi-maker kits (Appendix C), the
 beachhead-selection method and worked example — miniatures → dice → broad tabletop
-(Appendix A), and the crowdfunding-incumbent landscape (Appendix B). A technical
+(Appendix A), and the crowdfunding-incumbent landscape (Appendix B). Also **honestly
-reader who wants the real architecture should read the
+unfinished** and tracked as open work in the memo's backlog (§14): the **international
-[strategy memo](./maker-platform-strategy.md) directly — this document is the
+tax / cross-border** posture (the legal analysis is US-only today, under a digital-heavy
+global beachhead), **information security & breach posture** for the cross-tenant graph,
+**content moderation beyond authenticity** (third-party IP / DMCA), the **verification
+*methodology*** (how a verifier actually confirms original work), **support/dispute
+operations** as a funded function, and a head-to-head against the **creator-commerce
+tools** (Gumroad/Payhip/Ko-fi/Fourthwall). A technical reader who wants the real
+architecture — and the honest open edges — should read the
+[strategy memo](./maker-platform-strategy.md) directly; this document is the
 elevator version, not a replacement.

docs/maker-platform-strategy.md

@@ -650,6 +650,20 @@ This memo is deep on the architectural/strategic axes (money flow, network mecha
 
 2. **Hybrid makers — the making-vs-reselling line (standard).** *Direction set:* provenance attaches **per-item, not per-maker**, via a self-attested, buyer-facing catalog classification (Original / Original + components / Resale – fellow Maker / Resale – third-party), with trust-surface eligibility keyed to it — see §7 "Per-item provenance: the catalog's originality layer." *Still open:* the precise, **auditable line between making and reselling** — purchased supplies don't taint "original," but where exactly do finishing, assembling, and kitting fall? — plus the enforcement/audit hook (ties to §10 accountability) and the exact buyer-facing label wording. Interacts with the consignment/resale "avoid" fork (§7) and the no-walled-garden value rule (Appendix D).
 
+3. **International tax & cross-border operation (US-only today — flag for specialist counsel).** §11's analysis is entirely US (the *Wayfair* facilitator test, MTL, FTC). But the beachhead is **STL/digital-file-heavy and globally distributed** (UK/EU/AUS casters), so this is a *live* hole, not a someday: **EU/UK VAT on digital goods** (OSS/IOSS — VAT owed in the buyer's country from the first unit) and the EU **"deemed-supplier"** marketplace rule, which can pull a *facilitating* platform into VAT collection on logic that **does not mirror** the US "we fail prong 2" defense — so the out-of-flow stance does not automatically transfer abroad. Adjacent: **PSD2/SCA** on EU recurring club billing (the maker's processor must handle it; a "Standard account" doesn't discharge it), multi-currency display/settlement, and **KYC/AML/OFAC** onboarding for non-US makers/taste-makers on the Phase-2 cashable rail. *Direction: scope which jurisdictions Phase 1 actually serves, and put the VAT/deemed-supplier question to specialist cross-border counsel before international participants are first-class. Flag and verify — not legal advice.*
+
+4. **Information security & breach posture for the cross-tenant network service.** §7/§11 cover privacy *consent* thoroughly; neither covers *security*. The shared network service holds the single most attractive breach target in the design — **every maker's full order history + buyer PII + the cross-maker identity graph** — and for a *trust* brand a breach is existential, not merely costly. Still open: encryption at rest/in transit + key management, tenant-isolation and least-privilege access to the cross-tenant store, secrets handling, and an incident-response / breach-notification plan (state laws + the GDPR 72-hour clock). *Direction set here: infosec of the network service belongs in the §12 **funded reliability core** alongside the ledger and the verification audit — a trust-moat budget line, not a volunteer-cadence nice-to-have; the concrete controls are later work.*
+
+5. **Content moderation beyond authenticity (third-party IP / DMCA / prohibited goods).** Provenance verifies *handmade*, not *lawful to sell*. The minis/tabletop beachhead carries a heavy **third-party-IP/DMCA** load (fan-sculpts of others' IP; the Games Workshop takedown culture), plus counterfeit, regulated, and offensive-content surfaces — and the network *amplifies* whatever it surfaces (Curated-By, the buyer feed, the agent feed), so it inherits **amplification / contributory liability** distinct from "is it handmade." Still open: a DMCA §512 notice-and-takedown posture + designated agent, an IP-complaint / repeat-infringer policy, and the line between *verified original craft* and *originality of the depicted IP* (a verified maker can still infringe). Interacts with verification (§7) and accountability (§10). *Flag for counsel; design the takedown path before the agent feed amplifies at scale.*
+
+6. **Verification methodology — the evidentiary act (currently treated as a primitive).** §7 specifies the verification *graph* (rooted, staked, multi-vouch, sampling audit) and §10/#1 above defer the reputation *engine* — but **how a verifier actually establishes that a human makes original work** (what proof, what process, what staff and peers inspect) is neither specified nor flagged, and it is the literal foundation of the trust moat and the §11 FTC-substantiation claim — the hard adversarial core in an AI-fake world. Still open: the **provenance-documentation standard** (studio evidence, work-in-progress, live demo?), the staff seed-set method, and what a peer verifier must attest. *Name it as load-bearing open work, not a solved primitive.*
+
+7. **Support & dispute operations — the function and its cost.** §12 funds the reliability core (uptime, ledger, verification audit) but never a **support/ops function**: maker tickets (a broken sync at drop time), buyer-harm report intake, and the verification-revocation / appeal queues (§10). For a volunteer-built, money-adjacent, trust-critical platform this is a real recurring **F-term omission** and an operational-credibility question. *Still open: the support model, triage/SLAs for money-adjacent vs cosmetic issues, and its line in the §12 cost base.*
+
+8. **Competitive engagement: creator-commerce tools.** The "no continuous (non-campaign) platform treats commit-then-make as first-class" claim (§2) is load-bearing and currently engages only Etsy/Shopify/Patreon/Kickstarter/Gamefound. The sharper counter-examples a skeptic raises are the **creator-commerce tools** — Gumroad, Payhip, Ko-fi Shop, Fourthwall, Lemon Squeezy — several of which already do drops + memberships + digital delivery at low fees. *Still open: a head-to-head that substantiates "first-class, not covered" against these specifically — the likely cut being that each does the storefront/transaction but none does the cross-maker reputation-staked referral network (the moat), and most treat the cadence as features rather than the spine; verify the claim rather than assert it.*
+
+9. **Lower-priority flagged items (named, not yet developed).** (a) **cuttle.xyz / generative-tool integration** is cited as a differentiator (§2) without substance — develop what the integration is and why it's defensible, or demote it to a mere example. (b) **Catalog-sync reliability at scale** — N adapters against rented APIs (Shopify rate limits, webhook-delivery failure, deprecation cycles, reconciliation) is a chronic ops burden the moat surfaces depend on. (c) **Accessibility** (WCAG/ADA) for generated storefronts and the buyer feed — a compliance surface and an OHM-*dignity*-aligned one. (d) **Trademark / certification mark for "verified"** — a certification mark is the natural instrument to protect the badge from imitation (FTO/patent is covered in §11; this isn't). (e) **Platform wind-down plan** for the network asset — given volunteer-sustainability is the named #1 risk (§4), what becomes of the cross-maker graph, follows, buyer accounts, and outstanding wallet credits/payables if the org folds. (f) **Team / execution capacity** — the docs argue the model is *affordable*; named team/board/recruiting capacity is a separate, unaddressed question (arguably a roadmap/ops-doc concern more than a strategy one).
+
 ---
 
 ## Appendix A — Choosing a beachhead vertical (and sequencing expansion)