improve text

Author: krofax

pages/stack/interop/explainer.mdx

@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ See this [dune dashboard](https://dune.com/oplabspbc/op-stack-chains-l1-activity
 There is nothing stopping a sequencer from censoring a transaction when it is sent directly to the sequencer. This does not mean the network has no censorship resistance, users can always send a deposit transaction for censorship resistance as strong as L1 guarantees. The tradeoff here is the latency, instead of being confirmed in ~2 seconds, the transaction can be confirmed at the rate of L1 block production. It may be possible to adopt something like [EIP-7547](https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-7547) in the future to enable low latency censorship resistance.
 
 ### What is the weakest link scenario?
-Without shared security, there’s a risk that interacting chains could enter a conflicting state due to cross-chain interactions. If a weaker chain in the network is attacked or experiences a reorganization, it could change its state independently. This would leave the entire interop cluster in an inconsistent state, as the security of interactions across chains is only as strong as the weakest chain.
+Without shared security, there is a risk that interacting chains could enter a conflicting state due to cross-chain interactions. If a weaker chain in the network is attacked or experiences a reorganization, it could change its state independently. This would leave the entire interop cluster in an inconsistent state, as the security of interactions across chains is only as strong as the weakest chain.
 
 ### Are callback style transactions possible?
 If two blocks are being built at the same time with shared knowledge of their contents, it is possible to build blocks where a transaction calls to another chain, does compute and then a transaction calls back with the results. This requires no protocol level changes, it just requires more sophisticated block builder infrastructure.