There's debate in heritage conservation circles about whether conservation should indeed focus on restoring a historic building to its original condition or keeping it in a presumed ruined/dilapidated state.

I've quickly rehashed sections of my master's dissertation (am on my lunch break) which looked into heritage conservation and management. Sources available on request.

The main criticism if your proposal is that simply put, the end result will be wildly inauthentic and disregarded in traditional circles. Arguments include that attempts to make restorations more engaging with the general public details are often overlooked and simplified in order to enhance the aesthetic appeal to fit in with people's prior perceptions of a site. This has in the past been referred to as 'disneyfication' and is most evident in the emergence of living history attractions often located at tourist sites with an end product that is criticised as being sterile and superficial with a materialised message.

The common philosophical question in debates of authenticity centre around Theseus’ Paradox (or ‘Ship of Theseus’) This paradox, originally imagined by Plutarch uses the example of a ship repaired repeatedly after storm damage. Each time the ship builder salvages timbers from ships of similar ages and design to replace those on Theseus’ Ship. The paradox asks at what point is the ship a new ship, or after what percentage of timbers no longer being original does the ship stop being ‘authentic’?. A real life depiction of this paradox is HMS Victory, built in 1765 and since preserved, only 10-15% of the original timbers remain. The question can be asked; in current form is it a replica of the 1765 ship, or the real thing?

On the other hand, it can be argued that authenticity is located in the event itself and restoring a heritage asset to its former glory using traditional methods and materials can still be authentic in that it looks and feels the same as it would have done.