According to Sol LeWitt,

In conceptual art the idea or concept is the most important aspect of
the work. When an artist uses a conceptual form of art, it means that
all of the planning and decisions are made beforehand and the execution
is a perfunctory affair. The idea becomes a machine that makes the art.

Paragraphs on Conceptual Art, Artforum, 1967

I wonder how the Degradarte approach could be applied to such a form of art (Degradarte is an initiative launched by Guido Vetere,
promoting the exploration of the creative potential provided by this
constraint: a new branch of artistic and semiotic research, regarding
theory and techniques for the creation of new works of art, compatible
with these new rules and therefore suitable for free circulation on the
Internet).

Trying to lower the resolution of the idea itself, changing its form and making it simpler, would not be the right thing to do, since it would radically alter the essence of the artwork. For the same reason, I do not think that it would be correct to introduce planned deviations from the originally intended "execution plan" (i.e. intentional errors).

With all these in mind, it looks like the only way to alter the process, while preserving the essence of the conceptual artwork, is to introduce changes in the subject who "executes the idea". Let’s take Doris Salcedo’s Shibboleth, also known as "Doris’s crack" – an installation in the pavement of the Turbine Hall of the Tate Modern in London – and let the forces of Nature work in place of skilled masons and artisans.

Here is my own (degraded) version of Doris Salcedo’s Shibboleth, exhibited (permanently) just under the ceiling in my living room.

eg