## 4 Discussion
### Limitations and Early Recommendations for Future Studies  
The multisource nature of the proposed investigation poses some limitations for the chance to connect well-defined theoretical concepts and systems with less-developed indicators regarding the assessment tools in real market practice. This is not related to the availability of indicators but rather to the data to which these indicators refer, which are usually derived from technical sheets or documentation held by manufacturers or building companies without a standardized process; such a compulsory process should be adopted as a common shared protocol. This generally affects the comparability of information sets coming from the market side and makes more difficult the evaluation of the solutions within the range of indicators typically embedded in rating systems (which usually assign a scoring depending on the assessor's capacity to find and interpret the information). Thus, the main risk managed during the investigation was to match well-defined but general concepts, targets, and indicators from the theoretical side with more specific but often project-driven information from the practical tools. To reduce this risk and keep the investigation and matching process as rigorous as possible, the consolidated PRISMA approach was adopted to conduct a systematic analysis and record collection. The quality of the original data used to fill the documentation for scoring purposes in the rating system might represent a bias and a structural limitation, which reflect the limited level of maturity from the market perspective in considering the circular transition an opportunity rather than a mere administrative obligation. At least at the national level, this represents a relevant bottleneck in fostering CE adoption. As arguable in Table 3, \"Papers highly relevant to CE tools and indicators\" might be influenced by specific project aim and objectives while the group referred to \"Papers highly relevant to CE policies\" presents a very limited risk in this direction, being largely retrieved from review papers or policy reviews where sources come from wider and more reliable datasets. The aim of the study presented in this article was to lay the groundwork for the CE Task Force within the BETTERPOLICY project to report on the barriers and drivers for the uptake of circularity in construction, and then to formulate, in line with the overall project findings, a set of recommendations to stimulate the integration of life cycle-oriented tools and strategies into national policies. So far, the findings have confirmed the initial assumptions that there is a gap between policy frameworks and operational tools, and initial suggestions have been discussed as to what directions should be taken to overcome such a gap. However, insights on how to advance the systematic implementation of circularity in the construction sector can already be mentioned. In particular, there is a promising area, dealing with digitalization, which is under urgent development at the national level. According to the findings discussed so far, digitalization of waste management appears already advanced in terms of implementation, as well as green demolition workflow, but there is still the need to connect (waste) material workflow to an effective matchmaking platform. This would be extremely useful to ease the selection of the most appropriate materials, products, and solutions for meeting the CAM obligation according to a truly sustainable (circular) design and construction approaches. Disparity in CE uptake in different regions proves the need for a more coordinated effort at the national level to provide, for instance, a common platform on materials which, working as an inventory, would speed up and facilitate the selection of the management process, while offering a clear and transparent understanding of what products come from reuse, as well as their potential for future reuse.