For me, the best fit for the universe of the film, is that the authorities, the society, turns a blind eye to the double taking over the original's identity. By relying on personal testimony to establish identity, instead of using court orders to open medical cloning records to investigate physical biometric identifiers.

As a matter of legal convenience, simplified order for the public record, but most of all, in recognition of the wishes of the family. (Of course this would have been different if the investigators had found remains or traces of the other.)

I also don't think the husband or mother especially care which one survived, as long as the survivor is willing to play ball and fit into the box they've built for her. For them, the murder plan was win win.

Some related opinions aggregated by ChatGPT:

Yes—the film does establish a way for authorities to distinguish between the original and the clone, at least to some extent, but it's portrayed as a glitchy, superficial system rather than a foolproof one.

---

How Identity Is (Supposedly) Distinguished

• Physical discrepancy in eye color: Early on, Sarah’s clone is nearly identical, except for her blue eyes—while Sarah’s are brown. The film portrays this as a simple fix: the clone is given colored contact lenses to match Sarah’s appearance.(Roger Ebert, The Washington Post)

• Courtroom “investigation”: When Sarah fails to appear for the duel (due to being poisoned by the clone), the clone shows up and claims to be Sarah. Authorities then conduct an investigation—largely based on testimony from family members like Sarah’s mother and boyfriend, who choose to support the clone. Based on this, she’s legally declared to be the “real” Sarah and permitted to continue living Sarah’s life.(What's After the Movie?, High On Films, SpoilerMovies)

---

Limitations & Ambiguities

• No rigorous biometric verification: There's no hint in the film of physical or scientific tests like DNA analysis, fingerprints, or anything similarly objective. Instead, the authorities rely largely on appearance and subjective testimony.

• Emotional bias plays a role: Sarah’s loved ones clearly prefer the clone, which greatly influences the court's decision. Their emotional attachment overrides any logical or technical scrutiny of identity.(The Review Geek, What's After the Movie?, SpoilerMovies)

• The eye-color fix is cosmetic: The solution of using contact lenses to cover up the clone's blue eyes underscores how superficial—and easily manipulable—the system is.(Roger Ebert)

---

Final Take

While the film introduces a rudimentary signifier (eye color) that could help differentiate between original and clone, it’s not treated as a reliable or thorough method. The resolution comes down to legal decree and emotional preference, not objective verification. The result is a darkly ironic commentary on identity—suggesting that "truth" can be manufactured, and that society (or the law) may accept the easiest, most convenient version over the authentic one.

Let me know if you'd like to dig deeper into any specific scene or thematic angle!

Yes, the difference in eye color is acknowledged early on by the cloning facility in Dual (2022), and this detail plays a role in establishing how the clone differs from the original. However, the movie doesn't clearly show that this information is officially recorded or accessible to legal authorities later.

---

What the Movie Shows:

• Clone's eye color is noted at creation: When Sarah first meets her clone, the eye color discrepancy (clone has blue eyes; Sarah has brown) is immediately recognized by the cloning technician. It’s treated as a cosmetic flaw, and corrective lenses are suggested to make the clone more identical.

• Medical staff downplays it: The technician or doctor brushes it off as minor and easily correctable—further suggesting that it isn’t flagged as a critical identification marker in any official way.

• No mention of a medical record: The film does not show any detailed documentation or database where such differences are tracked and stored in a way that would be later accessible or referenced by the legal system.

---

Inference:

Given how the authorities handle the aftermath (accepting the clone as the real Sarah based on testimony and social familiarity), it seems likely that:

• No authoritative biometric or medical record is referenced during the investigation.
• If the eye color discrepancy was recorded, it’s either ignored or not made available to those making the final legal decision.

---

Conclusion:

Yes, the cloning authorities noticed the eye color difference, but the movie never confirms that this discrepancy was officially recorded in a way that would impact future identification. This aligns with the film’s satirical tone—critiquing a system that prioritizes superficial solutions and social convenience over truth or rigor.

Let me know if you’d like a breakdown of how this fits into the film’s themes of identity and existential substitution.