I can categorically say that what has been done to K7 is NOT conservation; it is reconstruction, which is something else.
I think that is why The Bluebird Project has consistently used the term "rebuild". This subject has divided opinion from the beginning, but there are many positives. The recovery of the wreck has allowed a complete crash investigation to take place; something that was not possible before and an aspect of this saga that the late Ken Norris was very keen to see take place. It was also his view that the wreck should have been recovered immediately after the accident. In that case, however, it is unlikely that the boat would still exist in any form. Many of the smaller (and some not so small) artefacts that were recovered immediately afterwards have disappeared from view - or are currently inaccessible - including the sponsons.
I fully accept and respect your views and these are very much shared by others. I too have a museum background and was deeply concerned by the whole issue when the events of 2001 unfolded. I think that it probably represents one of the most challenging, controversial and technically complex projects ever undertaken in transport preservation. For myself, I think that the best way of considering the rebuilding of K7 is to treat it as a very special case and, although there are parallels within the motorsport world (debating whether or not to rebuild a vehicle after a driver fatality), it is unlikely that the particular circumstances pertaining to this project will ever be repeated elselwhere. I am not sure if Vicky Slowe, the Curator of The Ruskin Museum, has entered into this debate but I do know that she and the team at Coniston remain totally enthusiastic and are clearly looking forward to Bluebird's return. On a personal level, I remain convinced that the course of action being followed here was really the only solution given that the wreck was raised in the first place.