“…We speculate that the exclusivity of subduction tectonic interpretations for the Isua supracrustal belt is largely a function of relatively sparse structural study. Although the antiquity and significance of the belt have been recognized since the 1970s (Moorbath et al, 1972;Moorbath et al, 1973), and signal insights into early Earth processes have been derived from Isua since then (e.g., Allwood et al, 2018;Bennett et al, 2007;Cabral et al, 2013;Caro et al, 2003;Crowe et al, 2013;Frei et al, 2016;Hassenkam et al, 2017;Komiya et al, 1999;Moore and Webb, 2013;Naeraa et al, 2012;Nutman et al, 2016;Rizo et al, 2012;Rosing et al, 2010), only about 10 research groups have published structural information about the belt (Allwood et al, 2018;Appel et al, 1998;Bridgwater and McGregor, 1974;Crowley, 2003;Crowley et al, 2002;Fedo, 2000;Fedo et al, 2001;Friend and Nutman, 2005Friend et al, 2008;Hanmer and Greene, 2002;James, 1976;Kaczmarek et al, 2016;Keto and Kurki, 1967;Komiya et al, 1999;Kurki and Keto, 1966;Myers, 2001;Nutman, 1984;Nutman and Bridgwater, 1986;Friend, 2007, 2009;Nutman et al, 1997Nutman et al, , 2000…”