Well, all I can say is that you're quite right that since it was determined in the 1960s to keep the building, there has been a lot of work done that has sometimes not been state of the art, because the state of the art was not as advanced as it is today.
One example of that would be using mortar that is too hard for the building stone that surrounds it and therefore causes breakage and spalling of the stone itself. So some of the costs for the southeast tower were for removing Portland cement mortar and replacing it with a mortar that is softer and more compatible with the stone.
So you're right, but that's part of the evolution, I suppose, of science. I think none of the intentions before were malicious.