docs(maker-platform): reconcile PR-FAQ<->memo divergences (illustrative pricing into memo; 'enforces'->'eases')

Superset audit found two real divergences:
- the illustrative all-in fee numbers (5-7%, ~3.6%, 13-16 pts) lived only
  in the PR-FAQ; port them into the memo §2/§7 so the memo stays superset
- PR-FAQ said the checkout 'enforces' the FTC 30-Day Rule; the memo is
  careful that the duty is the maker's and the platform only *eases* it
  (§11) — align the PR-FAQ wording

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

docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md

@@ -359,9 +359,10 @@ flow design that keeps fees low means the network never holds your funds — so
 nothing to refund *from*; escrow was declined deliberately (holding buyer funds is exactly
 what triggers money-transmitter licensing — §11). Your monetary recourse is a
 **chargeback against the maker's own payment processor** (the maker is merchant of
-record), and the platform's compliance-by-design checkout enforces the **FTC 30-Day Rule**
-— a maker who can't ship on time must notify and offer a refund — which is your first
-recourse *before* a chargeback (§11). **Second, the platform's contribution is
+record), and the platform's compliance-by-design checkout **eases the maker's FTC 30-Day
+Rule duty** — prompting the delay notice and one-click cancel/refund when a window slips (the
+duty is the maker's; the platform doesn't assume it) — which is your first recourse *before*
+a chargeback (§11). **Second, the platform's contribution is
 consequence, not insurance.** Non-delivery drops the maker's standing: a **low,
 buyer-visible reputation score** and **loss of all network amplification** (Curated-By, the
 buyer feed, referrals, the agent feed). They keep their storefront, but they fall out of