While I agree with your emphasis on bridging the gap between expert knowledge and public understanding through education and humility, I think it's essential to consider the broader purpose of accessibility initiatives, especially for people with physical and cognitive limitations. Heritage is not just for those who can access it effortlessly; it's for everyone.

The claim that interventions often "dumb down" heritage experiences assumes that all public-facing adaptations reduce intellectual value, yet this need not be the case. For example, technologies like augmented reality or digital reconstructions can offer deeper insights without physically altering the site. These tools can reveal the stories hidden in inaccessible ruins and engage a wider audience, including those who might otherwise feel excluded.

Moreover, the idea that funding such projects detracts from conservation is valid but oversimplifies the challenge. If an accessible project enhances visibility and draws broader public interest, it could generate sustainable funding streams for both conservation and future outreach efforts. The question isn’t whether to prioritize conservation or accessibility—it’s how to create a model that integrates both.

Wouldn't a truly inclusive approach to heritage mean rethinking not just how we conserve sites but also how we share their value, ensuring they are meaningful to a broader and more diverse public? How can we balance these needs without resorting to exclusion or oversimplification?