Quick link to the current (5 Feb) Science Advances (vol. 11, issue 6). I don’t like to dwell on the one negative, overhyped aspect of asteroid studies, but Bennu publicity is Bennu publicity, oh well:
Dai, L. Timmermann, A. Climatic and ecological responses to Bennu-type asteroid collisions .adq5399
Here, Dai et al. study the effects of an asteroid collision with Earth, using Bennu as their stand-in impactor. Bennu happens to be a well-characterized asteroid, so we can put some decimal places on the answers. However, aside from that, Bennu is not particularly notable as one’s stand-in. Bennu, at ~450 meters in diameter, is big enough to be a real issue (>140m) yet not big enough to be truly catastrophic (~1 km or more). And yet, ~100m impactors greatly outnumber ~400m ones (the size-quantity population slope is beyond geometric), while in turn size is also a nonlinear factor in the results (damage scales with mass, which scales with the cube of diameter). So again, is there a real point to holding up Bennu, and not something else, as an asteroid of risk? Ryugu is also well-characterized, and of larger diameter (though not dramatically so), while the largest boulders on Ryugu and Bennu are representative of ~50m superbolides, possibly resembling the Tunguska/Chelyabinsk impactors. DART impacted the asteroid satellite Dimorphos, an oblong of ~115 x 169 x 179 meters. In several years, the Hayabusa2# mission will continue to asteroid 1998 KY26. That asteroid is currently given as 20-40m, and therefore more representative of common (though less destructive) threat objects. Even before Haya2, the Hera mission will revisit Dimorphos, and should re-characterize it (kinda different, now) to a much finer level.
Data is data, and odds were someone was going to look into Bennu as an impactor. One more data point along the scale is another point, oh well. For the future, it would be interesting to see how analyses scale upward and downward from Bennu as one reference point.