Q: Removal rights when deletion is advisory

Surfaced independently in three readings. Hess & Ostrom added removal to the property-rights bundle for knowledge commons (UKAC ch. 3, pp. 52–53) and treated author withdrawal as a defect ("fugitive" artifacts, 2003 p. 144). Nostr inverts the failure mode: broadcast-to-N-relays makes artifacts effectively irrevocable (kind-5 deletion is advisory), which solves the fugitive-archive problem and creates a right-to-be-forgotten strain. Meanwhile Ostrom's own definitional test — "it is always possible to rescind it or reinstate it—or it is not a rule" ({{ref:src-digging-deeper|Ostrom 2005/2025}}, p. 86) — meets a substrate where the history of rule changes is itself immutable: policy is rescindable, the record of it is not.

Open: does the rights schema need an "effectively enforceable by whom" column ({{ref:concept-property-rights-bundles|Property rights as bundles}})? Is advisory deletion a governance signal like kind-1984 (honored per-relay, decoupled enforcement — {{ref:claim-split-sanctions|Split sanctions}})? What does a medical knowledge commons do about retraction, where correction without erasure is a safety requirement ({{ref:claim-composable-bounded-institutions|Bounded institutions compose on the open substrate}})?

Related: - {{ref:emergentgov|Index}} - {{ref:concept-property-rights-bundles|Property rights as bundles}} - {{ref:concept-ideas-artifacts-facilities|Ideas artifacts facilities}} - {{ref:q-preservation-without-archives|q-preservation-without-archives}}