What would be an example of a macro process causing a micro without going through micro processes?

I would think the best you can do is something like fractal geometry, where self-similarity appears at all scales. In some sense, the rules are both micro and macroscopic. An example where this might have real-world implications is Palmer's Invariant Set Theory, which suggests that this fractal structure shapes both cosmological structures and what we see in quantum theory, eg. like violations of Bell's inequality,

I can't think of physical processes that could go from macro -> micro. The examples I can think of stem from Yuval Harari's human fictions affecting the world. For example, a nation state or a corporation or a story could set the stage for the macro affecting the micro. If we look at a story, it communicates an idea that changes the behaviors of humans, which in turn causes those humans to interact with the micro and the macro.

As I'm writing this out and thinking about it, where would fictional objects fit on the micro <--> macro axis?

Fictions are encoded in the brain's microstates and drive its behaviour, comparable to how gate charge on transistors drives a computer state. But that is an interesting thought, because all of those microstates and their evolution are counterfactually described by a computer program, and much like math, perhaps a computer program in some sense has a platonic existence that isn't reducible to physical states. I probably wouldn't go in that direction, but some philosophers have made this case for math.

The Mars global dust storm is caused by coupling of angular momentum of the (solar) system, a global a effect. The Mars system itself down to the dust does not create sufficient conditions

That coupling is due to aggregate interactions of all system particles, so it's still comes down to a cumulative microscopic effect. Pretty good example though!

I think one of the reasons I have that example is that specific dynamic is cited in most planetary science texts as "de-coupled", "invariant", etc etc, when in fact it's the major casual influence here, which was quite a surprise in recent years [glances at climate mostly still beating to the tune that particle inertia does not have to care about the system angular momentum variance at the solar system scale]

Would lunar gravity -> tides -> waves -> erosion of particles from a rock count?

"Lunar gravity" is the effect of innumerable individual particles exerting a gravitational force, so that's not really macro.

Perhaps the effect of the fundamental physical constants like c, Plancks constant, and the permittivity of free space? They are macro in that their effects permeate all of existence without variation, but they give rise to the behavior of all particles

On the other hand, you could argue that they’re not “real” and therefore not macro

Maxwell demon?

Medicine

Medicine is all biochemistry.

Placebo is also medicine.

Placebo is largely regression to the mean, so it's more like statistics.

How about high pressure creating diamonds? Wars creating great (not in the normative sense) leaders? Climate and natural disasters creating selection pressure?

Not sure but turbulent diffusion might be an example? Fluid dynamics is emergent from its constituent particles, creating sometimes vortices etc. which can decay into ever smaller vortices through the fluid’s coarser dynamics. At some point the vortices become so small that the kinetic energy is turned into diffusive behavior at the particle level instead.

Doug Hofstadter's concept of "heterarchy" is somewhat apropros here. A heterarchy matches TFA's concept of a "closure" (information about the micro doesn't really aid in predicting or understanding the macro), but adds in the ability for higher (more macro) levels to feedback to the lower (more micro) levels.

I don't know how much Hofstadter still invests in this idea, but at the time of GEB, he seemed pretty convinced it is/was a central part of how complex systems like minds/brains function.