SİMA Analysis Report — Sample

The overall SİMA score is 7.4/10 — roughly the 72nd percentile of the reference age and demographic group; in other words, the profile sits ahead of about three out of four people in the comparison group. The score is an average of the eight section scores balanced by measurement count and perceptual weight; no single strong or weak finding determines it on its own.

The profile's defining character is the gap between structural and care-related measurements. Symmetry (9.1), lip structure (8.8), the eye area (8.4) and the nose (8.2) sit in the strength band; these are largely structural, meaning lasting advantages. Brows (5.9) and skin (6.1), by contrast, fall below the improvement threshold — both are care-related rather than structural findings, the category that responds fastest to a surgery-free protocol.

The reachable potential of 8.1 shows the band the measurements can realistically be moved to once the full protocol is applied: roughly 0.4 points of the gain come from brow density and 0.3 points from the skin texture and tone items. Structurally strong sections are held constant in the potential calculation; the potential is a measurement-based projection, not an inflated promise.

The facial symmetry index is 91%, in the upper band of the reference range (85–100). Comparing the left and right halves across the 468-point map, the largest local deviation is 1.1 mm at the brow-tail line; deviations along the eye, nose and mouth axes stay below 0.7 mm. Midline alignment deviates by only 0.6 mm — classed as strong, the typical value of faces perceived as balanced and orderly at a glance.

The proportions score is 7.8. The vertical thirds are distributed 32 / 34 / 34: the lower face is 2% longer than the reference average — a finding that adds character to the profile while deviating slightly from the ideal template. In the horizontal fifths, the interocular distance is 1.02 times the eye width, sitting squarely in the ideal band. With an fWHR of 1.86 (reference 1.80–2.00) and a composite golden-ratio deviation of 4.8% (threshold ≤ 8%), the overall ratio set is harmonious.

Because the findings in this section are largely structural, they are not direct protocol targets; the score's real value is showing the frame the other sections' suggestions fit into. Deviations like lower-face length cannot be changed without surgery — but they can be perceptually balanced through hair framing and contouring choices.

The canthal tilt is +4.2°, in the mildly positive range (0° – +8°) — the outer corner sitting slightly above the inner corner is the configuration associated with a rested, youthful-reading gaze. With a palpebral aperture of 9.6 mm (reference 8–11 mm) and a lid-to-brow distance of 19 mm, the eye frame is balanced; the interocular distance of 31.5 mm sits in the ideal band relative to facial width.

Lower scleral show is 0.4 mm — no white showing beneath the iris means one of the best-known markers of a tired look is absent from this profile. The section's single improvement finding is under-eye shadowing: grade 2 on a 5-point scale (mild but noticeable). The shadow's pattern points to micro-circulation and skin thinness rather than structural hollowing — the subtype that responds to a care protocol.

The shadow grade is the only reason the score stays at 8.4; once the finding drops to grade 1, the section moves into the upper half of the strength band. The sleep, hydration and eye-area care items are tied to this target.

Brow density sits in the 34th percentile — the lowest percentile in the report and the main driver of the section's 5.9 score. The density loss is not uniform: the head of the brow is relatively full at the 46th percentile, while tail density drops to 58% of the head's (reference ≥ 70%). This pattern is a thinning profile rather than outright loss — the type that responds best to topical densification.

The shape measurements show the architecture is sound: an arch height of 7.4 mm and a tail angle of 12° suit the face shape, and head-to-tail alignment is −1.1 mm, just under the reference band (0 – +2 mm). In other words the issue is not the brow's line but its fullness — shaping should preserve the existing line while the serum builds density.

With a 6–8 week serum-plus-weekly-shaping protocol, the target is to move density toward the 50th percentile; for this sample profile the 8-week projection is calculated at the 41st percentile (see Progress tracking). Because brow fullness also strengthens the eye frame, this item's contribution to the overall score goes beyond the section score.

The nasofrontal angle is 134°, at the upper end of the ideal range (115–135°) — the forehead-to-nose transition draws a soft profile line. The nasolabial angle of 96° (reference 90–110°) shows a balanced transition between the nasal base and the upper lip. Tip projection by the Goode ratio is 0.58 — inside the 0.55–0.60 ideal band.

The width measurements point the same way: alar width is 1.02 times the intercanthal distance (ideal ≈ 1.0), and with a dorsum smoothness deviation of 0.3 mm the profile line classes as smooth. Midface fullness sits at the 54th percentile — the age-group average — and cheekbone projection is proportionate to facial width.

No item feeds from this section into the protocol; the 8.2 score is among the strengths to preserve. The tone and radiance items of the skin protocol indirectly support the midface's appearance.

The upper-to-lower lip ratio is 1:1.6 — an almost exact match for the ratio referenced in classical aesthetic literature. With a philtrum length of 13 mm (reference 11–15 mm) and a Cupid's bow definition of 4/5, the lip area's structural set is among the report's most consistent strengths.

The surface measurements agree: lip surface smoothness is in the 78th percentile, vertical lining is minimal, and the lip moisture-barrier score of 7.8/10 sits in the strong band. The mouth-width-to-nasal-base ratio is 1.48 (reference 1.40–1.60) — the smile frame is balanced with the lower third of the face.

The 8.8 score is a finding to protect: the only item entering the plan is preventive (SPF lip care). No structural suggestion is needed.

The gonial angle is 118° (reference 110–125°) — the jaw corner is defined and the line reads clearly. A ramus length ratio of 0.71 keeps the lower-face skeleton balanced, and submental line definition of 4/5 is a strong finding for the age group.

Two measurements pull the score to 6.9: chin projection sits 1.5 mm behind the profile plane (reference 0 ± 2 mm — inside the band, but on the minus side), and the chin width ratio is neutral at 0.96. The projection gap is structurally small; head-and-neck posture, however, is the one variable that can enlarge or shrink it — forward head posture sets the profile back, while upright posture measurably brings the same chin forward.

The item this feeds into the protocol is therefore neither surgery nor filler but posture work: over 6–8 weeks of regular practice, the perceptual projection gain can be measured through standardized photo comparison.

Texture analysis draws a regional picture: pore visibility is at the 62nd percentile in the T-zone (noticeable) and the 38th percentile on the cheeks (normal). The tone evenness index is 84 (target ≥ 90) — a sun-driven irregularity pattern dominates. With a texture score of 6.0/10 and a moisture-barrier score of 5.8/10, barrier function sits in the middle band.

Fitzpatrick type III: a type that tans in a controlled way but accumulates UV damage — broad-spectrum sun protection is the non-negotiable item of the protocol for this profile. Perceived age is estimated 1.5 years above chronological age; most of the gap comes from tone irregularity and texture roughness, with a low contribution from lines and wrinkles. That distribution is a favorable sign: tone and texture are the two components that improve fastest with care.

With an 8–12 week barrier + vitamin C + night-renewal protocol, a gain of +4–6 points on the tone index and +0.5–0.8 on the texture score is projected; the target is to bring the perceived-age gap into the ±1 year band.