“…The decision-making of the case studies, often mention the principles of reversibility (Beentjes et al, 2010;Festa et al, 2015;Laurenti and Idelson, 2017;Niquet et al, 2020), retractability or recognisability (3D ArcheoLab and Romana, 2017;Brown and Liefkes, 2014;Larkin and Porro, 2016;Seixas et al, 2018), compatibility (Beentjes et al, 2010;Di Paola et al, 2017;Seixas et al, 2018) and the advantage of limiting contact with the object (Di Laurenti and Idelson, 2017). The use of 3D technologies as a less invasive method, which induces less risk for (parts of) the object is a frequently stated argument Beentjes et al, 2010;Bigliardi et al, 2015;Di Paola et al, 2017;Fantini et al, 2008;Hong et al, 2018;Larkin and Porro, 2016;Seixas et al, 2018). Furthermore, the work often does not have to be done in situ, because the reconstruction process happens in a virtual environment Kalasarinis and Koutsoudis, 2019).…”