Agree fully with the first part of your last para ("..resoration..agenda..") but not the second. There are few things that can't be undone (as any Leave voter will tell you - and - no; I wasn't one of them). In respect of consensus I think there is a consensus that it never looked like it does now (hence, as you say, this is not a restoration) and I doubt there will ever be a consensus of what it did look like - but it would be fun to have a discussion/views as to what it did look like - I think there are some people on this forum with good instincts on these things. Maybe there would be some interest in generating a local consensus? I have had my two pennies worth on the matter (quartz half-lozenge set in mound surface; water-rolled granite border/perimeter) so I will keep quiet for now but if we are going to do it I am conscious that this is "the internet" and I have already been called extreme (moi?) so to avoid this degenerating into abuse we need some rules:- I would suggest three rules and one advisory for any contribution as to the original design.

Rule 1 - No divine intervention
Rule 2 - No alien intervention
Rule 3 - Requires only neolithic technology/knowledge

The advisory would be that any proposal should offer a reason for the relative abundance and as-found distribution of the granite and quartz. I do not think this can be a rule because, really, we do not know that the relative abundance/distribution found in the 20th century is the same as the relative abundance/distribution in the neolithic era - it would not be the first time that some particular stone had been preferentially robbed (or redistributed) by later peoples.

Look forward to other's two pennies worth.