## 4 Paleostress Analysis Results
Since our interest is to compare the TRM with the best-fit stress inversion methods, a fourth analysis stage is performed. In this stage, we examine which additional fault-slip data (Appendix A) are compatible with the enhanced Andersonian bulk stress tensors of the previous stage if we only consider the MA minimization criterion of 30\({}^{\circ}\), i.e., the constraint of the best-fit stress inversion methods used by [32]. All the resolved Andersonian bulk stress tensors, T1\({}_{\rm TRM}\) through T5\({}_{\rm TRM}\), now labeled T1\({}_{\rm all}\) through T5\({}_{\rm all}\), are consistent with more fault-slip data than those defined by the TRM, and in some SSs, the explained fault-slip data are now equal to or greater than four (Table 4). For example, in SS7, the T4\({}_{\rm all}\) tensor explains nine instead of four fault-slip data explained by the T4\({}_{\rm TRM}\), and T2\({}_{\rm all}\) explains eight instead of six fault-slip data explained by the T2\({}_{\rm TRM}\); and in SS11, the T2\({}_{\rm all}\) tensor explains four fault-slip data, although no Andersonian site stress tensor was able to be defined in this SS. In addition, the MMA in each solution is less than 20\({}^{\circ}\). This is a fact that fortifies the fault-slip data homogeneity and that leads to accepted resolved stress tensors. The fifth analysis stage deals with the fault-slip data explained by the enhanced Andersonian stress tensors, i.e., T1\({}_{\rm all}\) through T5\({}_{\rm all}\), since some of the latter define the TRP and TRN stress regimes. Do these fault-slip data define Andersonian or non-Andersonian stress tensors by applying a best-fit stress inversion method (i.e., a method with no limitation of having one principal stress axis in a vertical position)? The 'Minimized Shear Stress Variation,' based on the algorithm of [81,82], defines stress tensors labeled T1\({}_{\rm MF}\) to T5\({}_{\rm MF}\) (Figure 4, Table 5). The resolved best-fit stress tensor, T5\({}_{\rm MF}\), defined by the same fault-slip data with the minimization criterion MA \(\leq\) 30\({}^{\circ}\) and almost the same MMA, is non-Andersonian, i.e., having its principal stress axes plunging less than 65\({}^{\circ}\)[86]. In the final part of our analysis (sixth stage), we tackle another issue concerning the above-described T1\({}_{\rm all}\) through T5\({}_{\rm all}\) stress tensors. It concerns the degree of similarity among the resolved stress tensors. This issue has been pointed out by [83,84,84], who suggested the comparison and the degree of similarity between two resolved stress tensors A and B with the use of the Stress Tensor Discriminator Faults (STDF), i.e., the faults which were activated by either A or B stress tensor, but not from both. In particular, three percentages of the Stress Tensor Discriminator Faults are calculated: one for the AB fault-slip dataset, and the other for the A and B fault-slip datasets, respectively. None of the calculated enhanced Andersonian bulk stress tensors are similar, since the percentages of the STDFs are above 80% (Table 6), suggesting that they define distinct stress regimes that should be explained from a geological point of view. Figure 4: The application of the “Minimized Shear Stress Variation” best-fit stress inversion method with the aid of the software MyFault, which uses the algorithm of [81, 82] on the \(\rm T_{\rm 1 all}\) through \(\rm T_{\rm 5 all}\) fault-slip data. (**a–e**) Stereographic projections and Misfit Angle (MA) histograms for the \(\rm T_{\rm 1 MF}\) through \(\rm T_{\rm 5 MF}\) resolved stress tensors. Explanation: The principal stress axes of the resolved stress tensor are shown with solid circles (maximum: biggest solid circle, intermediate: solid middle circle, and minimum: smallest solid circle). In the uppermost part of the MA histogram, the thin horizontal line centered on the mean shows the Mean Misfit Angle (MMA) and has a length equal to twice the 95% confidence value.