I think some of concern over the small inconsistencies spring from the homelessness narrative. Raynor/Sally got her first article published on this theme. If a core thread of her narrative is being poor/without food etc then skipping off for visits with possible opps for meals/showers/clothes washing etc becomes slightly more significant. The whole story seems wobbly. Some readers are happy to overlook this but others are not.
Raynor/Sally believes she has made good all her financial debts. That doesn’t seem to be accurate so the least she can do is ensure any outstanding debts were paid.
On the face of what has been emerged, some recognition of the stress her actions and words have caused others would be a welcome gesture.
At some point, Penguin might feel they have a case to try and get some money back from her but as everyone involved has done very well out of the book then that doesn’t seem too likely.
I doubt she will even act as a cautionary tale within the industry.
She seems to be a risk taker, hoping never to be caught out. This time she has and in some ways laid the groundwork that has created the interest in this investigation - justice of sorts perhaps.