Generally, there are a lot of things involved. Perhaps the least of these is the actual weight capacity (as measured by the actual weight a pack can carry without breaking) as opposed to the carry capacity (which is often conforming to different rules under the heading of “comfort.” Personally, I am NEVER truly comfortable carrying ANY load.)
Comfort levels on a frameless vs foam frame vs stays vs internal vs external framing all change and is pretty meaningless. What does comfort mean? If comfort levels are basically meaningless in this context, maximum weight carrying is meaningless, too. The point at which seams fail, shoulder straps rip loose, hip belts tear off, etc can very wildly between the same pack model. That said, I have never seen any pack fail with double the maximum weight carry capacity. Terrain can effect this too, with hopping up & down rocks placing large impact strains on pieces of gear that smooth, walking trails do not…or bushwhacking placing extreme tearing strains on packs not found on open trails.
I use small packs, with a virtual foam frame. Typically these are rated at maximum loads of 20-25 pounds. However, I use these packs for longer two week trips, with 23-25 pounds. I use the same pack for exercise carrying about double the “maximum load” rating. For example I use a 2012 Murmur rated at a 20pound load capacity with ~45pounds as an exercise pack, easily doubling the maximum load.
Would I ever send it back because of some failure? No. The rating says 20pounds. In essence, the manufacturer will not guarantee the pack because I used it beyond their spec. The manufacturers are simply protecting themselves. In most cases, I believe this is the biggest reason manufacturers list a maximum load capacity. Indeed, this extends to pack dimensions, also. Example: if you continually carry a larger 9″ bear ball in a small pack with a 4.5″ maximum width, you are putting stress on the pack where it was not designed to hold it allowing thinner fabrics to take abrasion where it was not designed to. For example a Bear ball in the bottom of a pack and stiff side pouches do not mix well. You cannot fit a water bottle in the pouch without really stressing the fabric/seams.
While not much of a concern with traditional packs (>2 pounds,) we see smaller packs running into different limits, strength of fabrics, quality/type of sewing, design/dimensional limits, limited use of heavy duty laminated fabrics, etc. For someone who does 90% of their backpacking UL, it becomes important, though. Every ounce of base weight matters. Packs are one area that a UL person can easily save a pound of weight or more over a traditional pack at over 2 pounds. (Cloths, tents, sleeping gear, cook gear being the others. Lowering the weight of food, fuel and water doesn’t effect base weight.) Packs are built to less durable, but lighter standards: lighter fabrics, lighter construction techniques, lighter hip belts, etc. They will NOT hold as much maximum load.
So, in answer to your questions, I don’t think it is either of the two reasons you mention. It is simply the manufacturer protecting themselves from a lot of repair work.
Sometimes, it is mostly salesmanship. A HMG Windrider 2400 has a spec or 40pounds maximum load. Yet a HMG Windrider 4400 has a spec of 60pounds maximum load. Same materials/same design in either case. It doesn’t make sense when you think about it. But paying more for something means you think you are paying for more.