Should an extra appendage be assessed for compensation analogously to a paralyzed limb?

Primary text

The comparison of an extra appendage to a paralyzed limb is invalid. This is because the extra parts lack any inherent beauty, whereas a paralyzed limb may retain some aesthetic value or semblance to a complete form. Moreover, any potential beauty in the extra part would differ fundamentally from the beauty associated with a complete, natural limb, and would vary significantly among cases, thus necessitating discretionary compensation rather than fixed analogy.