As currently written, the OP is not conceptually consistent. It starts well, with "Events in the world can be described on the macro scale or the micro scale." Evidently true.
Almost immediately though, you throw away this perfect framing: "For events that occur in the macro scale, such as the shape of a particular rock..."
No event occurs on a macro scale, or on a micro scale. They happen at all scales at once in a way, but we chose to describe them using a specific scale. Scale is in the eye of the observer; it belongs to the domain of symbolic description.
The reason scales exists (for observers, as an description tool) is to be found in the relationships -- the dialectic if you wish -- between a map and the territory it describes. A map of a territory in real size would be quite useless, as it would physically extend over the whole territory it describes. Similarly, a map of a molecule in real size (at scale 1/1) would be quite useless because nobody could read it. So we need scales, but the universe doesn't. They are not ontic.
Take the example of the sun. To my knowledge, our only theoretical tools to understand what happens in the sun, all these nuclear reactions between hydrogen producing helium, etc. is QM. The sun is a gigantic quantic ball of atoms in fusion, as currently described by science. And without it, none of us would be alive since life on this planet depends on it.
The very carbon life is made of, originates from other stars, where it was forged with (almost) all the other elements, and then ultimately expulsed into space when those stars died supernova style. The very matter composing the cells of your body today originates from quantic events at the heart of long-dead stars.
The light emitted by the sun come from quantic events. Note that these fusion events do not cancel each other out in any way. Rather, they add up, they link up in chain reactions. And each fusion event is microscopic but the light emitted by them travels far and wide.
So what is the real, ontic scale of such a fusion reaction in the sun, if some of its effects could reach the vicinity of Sirius one day?
There is a logical contradiction between a reductionist outlook, saying that causality comes from below, and a view of the world in which big stuff would be causally autonomous from small stuff, by some fuzzy statistical magic.
Aren't big stuff made of small stuff, after all?
What is the real scale of the shape of your stone? Cannot it be represented at a very fine level of detail, microscopic scale, and shown to have at that scale too all sorts of asperities, holes, crevices, and other shapes?
The shape of the stone exists at all scales. Only you observe it at one scale.