I'm not merely comfortable acknowledging it, I specifically took the time to demonstrate how the outcome was property-type-independent by explicitly going over

I'm not merely comfortable acknowledging it, I specifically took the time to demonstrate how the outcome was property-type-independent by explicitly going over what happens when we remove the property from the example but leave everything else unchanged. If you contend that the breaking of the agreement is somehow equally superfluous, then I think it's on you to demonstrate that through a similar analysis. You seem pretty confident this is the case, but I am skeptical given that the story only really had two components: the property in question, and the agreement with regard to the property. They can't both be inconsequential details fleshing out an otherwise empty story, right? But either way, I think the point that immediately follows that is even more important, right? The fact that the nature of the ownership, even in a "successful" transaction, is incredibly more complicated with the drawing. How the we don't even properly understand how much "ownership" you have of the drawing without a contract. How that transaction potentially puts you in direct competition with Alice in the future. Etc. etc. Again, the entirety of my position is the fairly narrow statements that: 1) intellectual property is fundamentally different from physical property, 2) you thus cannot simply model intellectual property transactions by merely pretending you're dealing with physical objects (since there's fundamentally more dimensionality and ambiguity without explicitly outlining and agreeing to way more terms and details), and 3) intellectual property thus naturally requires significant infrastructure in order to create an environment that gets anywhere close to simulating the same "physical-like" properties for intellectual property. I don't think that's controversial.