## 4 Comparison of Classical and Computer-Aided Reconstruction Results in Case 1  
When considering the reconstruction results of a forensic facial soft tissue reconstruction, it should not be assumed that the individual appearance of an unknown deceased person can be reconstructed in every detail. However, according to experience and scientific publications on facial soft tissue reconstructions carried out to date, a considerable approximation to the overall appearance of an unknown individual is achieved. Even if there are strong influences on the external appearance of a reconstructed face, such as the reproduction of the correct hairstyle, the overall impression of the face and the facial proportions remain very decisive for a reconstruction. This means that there is at least the certainty that the basic character of a face will be reproduced exactly. It is not uncommon for the reconstructed face to achieve a very high degree of similarity with the actual appearance of the deceased. In other cases, however, the unavoidable margin of judgment in the interpretation of the empirical reconstruction rules leads to a deviation in the reconstruction from the individual appearance. It is irrelevant whether the reconstruction is carried out classically or computer-aided. A comparison of the reconstruction results is usually made on a quantitative basis. However, as the identity of the unknown man in Case 1 remains unconfirmed, no reference images or identity-validating data are currently available. Consequently, no formal validation can be conducted at this stage. Therefore, any further discussion regarding this case will be based solely on qualitative criteria. Above all, the choice of the basic method for reconstructing the face and the individual facial features, as well as the underlying data on the anatomical soft tissue markings, can influence the result. In the present case, computer-aided reconstruction was carried out using the Manchester method. It was not clear from the documents provided which method was used for the classic reconstruction. However, according to the descriptions of the procedure in the protocols from 1994 and in conjunction with the statements in [12], it can be assumed that the American method was used for the classic facial soft tissue reconstruction. Another difference could lie in the data used for the anatomical soft tissue markings. In computer-aided reconstruction, data on anatomical soft tissue thicknesses from [PERSON] et al. [13] were available. In comparison, the documents do not contain any information on the underlying tissue thicknesses but only indicate that the data were collected from living individuals. For this reason, only a limited statement can be made at this point about possible influences on the reconstruction results based on the anatomical soft tissue markers. The following statements can be made regarding the reconstruction methodsused for the individual facial features. In the computer-aided reconstruction, the nose was modeled according to the established method of [PERSON] et al. [45], and in the classic method, according to [PERSON]. [PERSON] [71]. Comparison of Computer-Aided Reconstruction Results with Photographs of the Deceased Person in Case 2  
In Case 2, the identity of the body found could be clarified in the course of the investigation. This means that photographs of the deceased were available for comparison, which allowed for a quantitative evaluation of how similar the reconstructed face appears to the original. This approach should help to assess the accuracy of the reconstruction in a more objective manner. It is important to note that the focus of this work was less on evaluating face recognition models themselves and more on quantitatively assessing the similarity between the reconstructed face and the actual appearance of the individual. A quantitative comparison can be made using basic facial landmarks and measurement distances. However, these methods are generally limited to images captured under strictly controlled conditions.