Tim S wrote:
The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:


well it hardly matters which it is, since both need damp to flourish and
both need entirely removing, and remedial action to remove the wetness
applied, as well a replacement of structurally deficient timbers.

A good fungicide is also a good idea as well.

So would it matter if a section of generally sound, but inaccessible timber
with a trace of rot is left in place (the alternative being to strip the
roof, which is lead)?

For wet rot, I would say yes.

For dry rot, I'm still a bit contaminated by the 70's notion that one hint
of dry rot left will eat your house alive.

Where did that idea come from? Was it scaremongering by rot-killing firms?

Cheers
Tim

If you mange to halt the fungus growth and th wood is adequately sound,
thats all that matters.