docs(maker-platform): close Tier-1 PR-FAQ gaps (provenance, trust & safety, crowdfunding, pricing numbers)

Surface from the strategy memo into the PR-FAQ four answers a launch
reviewer would expect the doc to stand on its own for:
- per-item provenance mechanism (§7/§10/§11): classes, trust-surface
  eligibility, misclassification = de-verification, FTC substantiation
- trust & safety: buyer pre-order/ghosting recourse (§10/§11) and the
  anti-collusion / rooted-trust-graph architecture (§7/§10)
- the episodic-campaign incumbents — Kickstarter/Gamefound/BackerKit —
  via the campaign-vs-cadence distinction (Appendix B)
- replace the "X%" pricing placeholder with worked illustrative all-in
  numbers; fix the imprecise "~20% more of every sale" subhead

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

docs/maker-platform-pr-faq.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-# Maker Platform — PR-FAQ
+# Wiggleverse Maker Collective - A Platform for Makers to Connect — PR-FAQ
 
-> **What this is.** An Amazon-style **PR-FAQ** ("working backwards") version of
+> **What this doc is.** An Amazon-style **PR-FAQ** ("working backwards") version of
 > [`maker-platform-strategy.md`](./maker-platform-strategy.md). It opens with a
 > future-dated *press release* written as if the product had already launched,
 > then answers the questions a smart skeptic would ask. It is a communication
@@ -13,15 +13,7 @@
 > transmission, marketplace-facilitator tax, chargebacks, GMV) is defined inline;
 > architecture is not.
 >
-> **Product name.** "Wiggleverse Maker Collective" — chosen over "Wiggleverse Makers"
-> and "Wiggleverse Market" because *collective* carries the demand-aggregation,
-> commit-then-make motion and is deliberately **not** a marketplace word, holding the
-> *network, not marketplace* positioning (memo §7). Full name on first use, then
-> "Maker Collective". The public URL is makers.wiggleverse.org, matching the brand.
-> Pre-launch, so not
-> necessarily the final legal brand. **Dateline is aspirational** (target launch
-> Aug 1, 2026), per the working-backwards method: the press release is the
-> *target*, written before the build, not a record of a shipped thing.
+> **Product name.** "Wiggleverse Maker Collective"
 
 ---
 
@@ -31,8 +23,8 @@
 
 **A verified-maker network where independent makers run customized orders, drops, pre-orders, and
 clubs in addition to traditional *stock-then-sell* commerce — and earn demand by vouching for each other, not by buying ads. The maker
-keeps their own storefront, checkout, customers, and ~20% more of every sale than
-on Etsy.**
+keeps their own storefront, checkout, customers, and far more of every sale — all-in
+fees around 4–7% versus Etsy's ~20%.**
 
 **SEATTLE, WA — August 1, 2026** — Maker Collective today opened to
 its first community of independent makers — the tabletop-miniatures scene: a
@@ -171,14 +163,41 @@ So the play is two-sided: **out-tool** Patreon's club with a native, out-of-flow
 lower-fee version the maker owns (the Tool), and **out-flank** it with the cross-maker
 referral network it structurally can't grow (the Network).
 
+**Isn't this just Kickstarter / Gamefound / BackerKit?**
+No — and the distinction *is* the opening: **campaign vs. cadence** (Appendix B).
+Kickstarter, **Gamefound** (tabletop-native, Kickstarter's biggest tabletop rival —
+sitting *in* the miniatures vertical), and BackerKit are built for **episodic,
+project-scale campaigns**: a big push that funds a project, then fulfillment. None of them
+serves the maker running a small drop **every other Saturday**, a 10-piece lottery, a
+monthly club, or a standing made-to-order queue — the **continuous** commitment-commerce
+cadence. That continuous, relationship-driven, small-batch motion is the unserved space
+*between* Shopify (continuous but stock-only) and Kickstarter/Gamefound (commitment but
+episodic), and it's where we play. So the posture is **coexist, not compete**: run your big
+annual campaign on Gamefound if that's the right tool for it — keep us for the continuous
+cadence *between* campaigns, plus the cross-maker referral network none of them have. Two
+structural cuts underline it: Kickstarter is itself **in the money flow** (it processes
+pledges, takes a cut, and pays out, disclaiming only *delivery* liability), where we keep
+the maker merchant-of-record on their own processor and shed both the flow and the
+delivery liability (§7/§11); and the campaign players are single-project tools with **no
+reputation-staked cross-maker referral graph** — the durable moat — which they won't build
+for the same reason the others won't.
+
 **What does it cost, and what's the "~20%" claim?**
 Marketplaces like Etsy bundle everything into one fee that, all-in, can approach
 ~20% of a sale (GMV = gross merchandise value, the total sold). We **unbundle**:
 you pay your own payment processor directly (their normal ~3%), and pay us a
-separate, modest software fee billed in arrears — a small percentage on captured
-orders for cold-start makers, or a flat **$29–49/month at 0%** once you graduate by
-volume (§7, "How the platform gets paid"). The wedge is transparency: "our fee +
-your processor ≈ X%, versus Etsy's ~20%" — stated in numbers. We bill on
+separate, modest software fee billed in arrears, on a tier that **auto-graduates by
+volume so you never overpay**: **Starter** at $0 + a small percentage (~2–4%) on
+captured orders (so a low-price-point maker isn't over-taxed), or **Pro** at a flat
+**$29–49/month + 0%** once your volume makes the flat fee cheaper (§7, "How the
+platform gets paid"). Worked through, all-in — *illustrative; real rates are set at
+launch*:
+- a **Starter maker doing ~$1,200/mo**: ~2–4% platform + ~3% processor ≈ **5–7%** all-in;
+- a **Pro maker doing ~$6,000/mo**: $39/mo + ~3% processor ≈ **~3.6%** all-in;
+- **Etsy, for either of them: ~20%.**
+
+That's the wedge in the numbers the doc owes you, not a slogan: a maker keeps roughly
+**13–16 percentage points more of every sale** than on Etsy. We bill only on
 *captured/fulfilled* orders, never on pledges that never cleared.
 
 **Do I have to abandon my Shopify store to join?**
@@ -211,6 +230,37 @@ graph with sampling audits, because it's the highest-stakes mechanism in the sys
 **gate the demand, not the tool** — so verification is something makers are pulled
 toward, not blocked at.
 
+**How do you know a specific *item* is original — not just that the maker is real?**
+Two different checks, and conflating them is the Etsy failure mode. **Verification** is
+about the *maker* ("a real maker of original work?"); **provenance** is per-*item* ("is
+*this product* their original work?"). A real maker's catalog is legitimately mixed — a
+potter sells their pots *and* resells pottery tools — so every item carries its own
+**provenance classification** (§7), **self-attested** by the maker, **audited** by the
+trust machinery, and **shown to the buyer**: *Original* (bought raw materials like clay
+are inputs to making, not other-sourced parts) · *Original + components* (primarily
+theirs, with identifiable parts from others attributed — the "partly original" kit case)
+· *Resale – fellow maker* (an in-network maker's original item, provenance tracing to the
+true maker — Curated-By as a catalog item) · *Resale – third-party* (commercial goods,
+tools, supplies — honest, allowed, clearly *not* original).
+
+Two things make the badge a guarantee rather than a self-serve sticker. **Eligibility
+keys off it, per item:** only *original* and *original-+-in-network-components* surface as
+the maker's original work in Curated-By / the buyer feed / the agent feed; a fellow-maker
+resale surfaces only *attributed to the true maker*; **third-party resale never enters a
+trust surface** — surfacing it would launder non-original goods through a trusted face,
+the Etsy pollution failure mode from the inside. And **misclassification has teeth:**
+calling a resale "original" is a *provenance lie*, not a clerical slip — a
+**verification-revocation trigger** (§10), with self-attestation (cheap to classify)
+policed by **sampling audits plus buyer reporting** (risky to game). One useful
+consequence: because "handmade/original" are advertising claims the FTC can require you to
+substantiate, this system *is* the substantiation mechanism (§11) — the product-defining
+feature and the compliance obligation are the same build.
+
+What's still open, deliberately: the precise, auditable line between *making* and
+*reselling* — purchased supplies don't taint "original," but assembling mostly-third-party
+parts isn't original either; finishing, assembling, and kitting sit in between. That
+standard is named as later work (§14 #2), not claimed as solved.
+
 **What is "Curated By This Maker," and how do referrals pay?**
 Each storefront carries a section where the maker features other *verified* makers'
 products they genuinely admire. When a buyer follows that link and buys, the
@@ -257,6 +307,26 @@ Three things, in the order they matter (the buyer value prop, memo §13):
   *you* chose to follow and the makers *they* vouch for, never an algorithm pushing
   whatever converts (§7, "The buyer-facing feed").
 
+**I pre-ordered, and the maker never delivered. What protects me?**
+This is the *signature* risk of commitment commerce, not an edge case — the model collects
+money before delivery, so "a verified maker takes pre-orders/deposits and ghosts" is the
+structurally most-likely scam, and a PR-FAQ that skipped it would be dishonest (§10). Two
+straight answers. **First, the platform is not a guarantor.** The same out-of-the-money-
+flow design that keeps fees low means the network never holds your funds — so it has
+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
+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
+every surface that sends them buyers, and you — and every future buyer — can see the score.
+That's *transparency as enforcement* (§10): the network doesn't promise nobody ever
+behaves badly; it makes bad behavior legible and costly, and keeps the trusted surfaces
+clean by construction, since a low-standing maker has already dropped out of them.
+
 ---
 
 ### Part 2 — Strategy & build questions (for the technically-minded skeptic)
@@ -363,6 +433,40 @@ deferred):
   *direction* (progressive delegation, phased, capture-resistant) is set — the
   machinery is later work.
 
+**What actually stops collusion — a ring of fake makers vouching each other in, or weaponized reports?**
+The highest-stakes surface in the system, because one polluted "verified" item breaks the
+guarantee for every buyer and agent downstream (§7, §10). The defenses are structural, not
+best-effort:
+- **The trust graph is rooted, never flat.** It is emphatically *not* "anyone verified can
+  verify anyone." Every maker enters by invitation and traces back, by a chain of vouches,
+  to a seed set Wiggleverse staff verified directly — a **permanent topology** that
+  persists even after open signup arrives, so a compromised subtree can be found and
+  revoked at its root.
+- **Inviting pays nothing.** There is deliberately **no per-invite bounty** — a payout
+  would manufacture the exact Sybil/farming incentive the rooted graph exists to resist.
+  You invite people whose work you'd stake your standing on, because that is the only thing
+  the edge means.
+- **The vouch is a slashable stake, and consequence flows uphill.** When a maker
+  misbehaves, consequence propagates **back toward whoever vouched for them** — transitively,
+  **decayed per hop, and hop-capped**: strong right next to the misbehavior (the inviter who
+  can actually act), negligible by ~6 degrees out (a distant root isn't punished for a
+  great-great-invitee's fraud). A bad vouch costs the voucher standing; a good one compounds
+  it.
+- **The consequence is loss of standing, not expulsion.** A bad actor keeps the storefront
+  tool (a paying customer; the tool was never gated) but loses a buyer-visible score and
+  all amplification. Authority is layered: the **inviter** holds primary suspend authority
+  over their sub-graph, a **platform floor** lets staff act directly on active buyer harm
+  regardless, and a **governance appeal path** (§14 #1) protects the wrongly-penalized.
+- **Sampling audits + buyer reporting** sit underneath — and the abuse surface of the
+  reporting system *itself* (false reports, retaliatory scores, collusion rings) is named
+  as instrumented from day one alongside ring-detection.
+
+What's deliberately deferred (and marked so): the *reputation engine's* concrete mechanics
+— the scoring math, the decay-coefficient and hop-cap *values*, the benefit-gating
+thresholds, and the false-report/collusion controls — are explicit OHM-guided open work
+(§10, §14 #1), not claimed as solved. The *shape* is settled; the *values* are later work,
+because n=2 can't calibrate them yet.
+
 **Why now?**
 This is the org-level [Wiggleverse thesis](https://wiggleverse.org/about/) ("the era
 of infinite alternatives") applied to maker commerce: every era commoditizes something
@@ -404,7 +508,7 @@ first for four reasons:
   network moat against eroding incumbents, OHM ethics made concrete (verification,
   provenance, usage-rights), and the open-core partner ecosystem. Prove it here and the
   rest is de-risked.
-- **The ethic, legible in dollars.** "Our fee + your processor ≈ X% vs Etsy's ~20%" —
+- **The ethic, legible in dollars.** "Our fee + your processor ≈ 4–7% vs Etsy's ~20%" —
   the mission is a number on every sale, not a slogan.
 - **"Small businesses are really just people."** Serving makers directly is the mission
   — treat humans as humans — applied where commerce most turned them into accounts.