## 2 Comparison of Long-Term Features  
In this application of the simulation algorithm, which does not contain any distinction among the different fault mechanisms, except for the stress interaction among different sources, we adopted the same set of free parameters used by [PERSON] et al. (2022b) [15] for both study areas. Applying the same set of parameters to these two geologically distinct regions (CNAFS and NMTFS) might appear inappropriate due to the inherent differences in their tectonic settings. In fact, finding a justification for our choice based on the information provided by the historical records reported in Table 1 is a difficult task, especially for CNAFS. [PERSON] et al., 2022b [15] tried a set of nine combinations of free parameters and found the combination of the two parameters adopted in their study as the most appropriate for simulating the clustering properties of the observed seismicity. Nevertheless, the characteristic earthquake features of the synthetic catalogue were not recognizable in the observed seismicity, most likely due to the short duration of the historical catalogue (370 years in their study) in comparison with the expected recurrence time of the characteristic earthquake of the CNAFS of some thousands of years. For short-term clustering, Figure 8 of [PERSON] et al., 2022b [15] found that the simulator could reproduce reliable features of foreshocks-aftershocks sequences and b-value variations. We produced for CNAFS a synthetic catalog lasting 100,000 years and containing more than 300,000 M\({}_{\rm w}\geq 4.2\) events, while for NMTFS, a catalogue lasting 100,000 years and containing more than 1,000,000 M\({}_{\rm w}\geq 5.0\) events was obtained. The largest magnitudes reported in the two simulated catalogues are 7.55 (CNAFS) and 8.66 (NMTFS). For NMTFS, the largest magnitude is similar to the one reported in Table 1 and may be related to the rupture of the whole fault system in a single event, while for the more complex CNAFS, there is a difference in the order of a half magnitude unit between the largest simulated and observed magnitudes, referable to the shortness of the historical catalogue as outlined in the previous paragraph. A comparison between the occurrence rates of the two study areas was performed by computing the average inter-event times for earthquakes of M\({}_{\rm w}\geq 7.0\) within a distance of 100 km from each other. This computation sorted out a value of 1920 and 42 years for CNAFS and NMTFS, respectively. Similarly, we computed the seismic moments released by CNAFS and NMTFS, obtaining \(5.15\,10^{17}\) Nm/year and \(8.12\,10^{19}\) Nm/year, respectively. These values are, respectively, equivalent to the seismic moment released by a yearly earthquake of magnitudes 5.74 and 7.11. Both comparisons clearly show the great disparity of seismic activity between the two fault systems, due to the large difference between both the fault sizes and the slip rate of the two seismogenic models. In our simulation algorithm, the rate of seismic moment released by the fault systems is controlled uniquely by the dimensions of the sources and their slip rates (as the shear modulus G of the elastic medium is assigned as a constant) and not by the free parameters used for controlling the rupture growths. The values of the seismic moments previously obtained for the historical earthquakes of Table 1 are smaller than those resulting from the simulations for the same period of 1024 years for both seismogenic systems considered in this study. For the CNAFS in particular, the seismic moment released by the four strongest historical earthquakes is an order of magnitude smaller than that which was computed through the seismogenic model of the simulator application.