Bill Hong (among others) provides historical examples of editing of various
forms of artistic expression.

Historical precedent does not confer artistic or ethical correctness.
There are a lot of things that were done historically (slavery, for one)
that we now recognize to have been unethical.

It is unquestionably the case that there is nothing stopping anyone
from revising an artist's work as they see fit.  It happens all the time.
Composers did it routinely, e.g., the orchestration of Pictures at an
Exhibition.  I have no problem with such editions when they are presented
honestly as someone else's take on an original work.  Where I start to feel
uncomfortable is when someone asserts, without supporting evidence, that
their edition is what the original artist "really intended" or "would have
intended".  I'm sorry, all I know of what the artist intended is what
the artist left.  In the case of repeats, if the repeat was notated,
and there's no indication that it's optional, then it is what the artist
intended.  Anything else is alteration.  Is that alteration "illegitimate"
or corruption? Well, now we cross the threshold into opinion, not fact.
If you believe omitting a repeat is justified, fine, say so, but don't
wrap yourself in the composer's intention.  That decision was yours, not
the composer's.

len.