If you are in Milan, visit da Vinci’s Last Supper. (Book tickets and timeslot well in advance) When the Allies were approaching (and bombing the crap out of everything) sandbags were piled against the wall with the painting to preserve it. The roof was caved it, but the painting and wall preserved. When they rebuilt the church, they simply left the restored building roof shape in white rather than try to reproduce all the other paintings on the sides and ceiling that had been destroyed - a strong reminder of what was gone.
I also remember going into a small church not far from the Tower of London (All Hallows by the Tower?). Some guide mentioned that it was one of the oldest churches in London - then I looked up in a side aisle and it had a flat concrete roof. The church was heavily damaged in the blitz, and quick and simple repair had been made. That’s the other extreme.
The Notre Dame building was mainly stone, and the fire burned the wood roof covering the stone vault over the main church. It was bad enough that some sections of the vault collapsed. With modern construction techniques, I have no doubt they can rebuild the missing sections, and if necessary shore up the building with extra reinforcement (and maybe hide it in the roof area).
(As I understand it, the flying buttresses were part of the original structure. They are the result, not of problems with the original building, but rather progressive trial and error on earlier similar buildings.)
Some restoration simply can’t be done to original specs. The question is - how true to original do you want to be? The cost of a full roof made of the same giant oak beams would be prohibitive - if there is even enough such material available nowadays. But all that was hidden under the roofing. The original roofing (slate?) was underlaid with sheets of lead. We have better, cheaper more durable materials nowadays. There are materials that work better than lead (less toxic, too). Do you want to use slate shingles, or some substitute that is lighter, cheaper, more durable but can be made to look exactly like slate? Do they rebuild the spire the same with wood(it was only added in the 1800’s) or build a replica in modern non-flammable materials? Or (heresy!) have a design competition like in the 1800’s and crown a building from 1100 with some design obviously from the 2000’s?
At the very basic - do they restore the vault using same stonework method - same block shapes? Same mortar mix or modern better tech? Match stones from near original quarries, or any stone of the same rough colour? (Or pour concrete and use a pattern in the form to simulate blocks?) All these are decisions that have speed reliability and cost implications.
From what I’ve read elsewhere, the basic stone structure is sound except for the parts under where the spire was. And fortunately, unlike later buildings, as I recall the interior ceiling was mostly unpainted block, not some priceless heritage painting.
(The story I heard was about Paul Bunyan’s axe. He used the same axe for so long and so often that he had to replace the handle 5 times and the head 3 times, but it’s still the same axe.)