  It is shown that considering a fixed increment of a given magnitude at a
fault is equivalent to factoring the mechanical moment at the fault as done in
structural engineering with the applied loads, by the most currently used
structural engineering standards (e.g. Eurocodes). A special safety factor is
introduced and related to the partial factor acting on the mechanical moment
representing the fault. A comparison is then made between the hazard maps
obtained for Italy with the Neo Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (NDSHA)
technique, using two approaches for the definition of the seismic sources
considered for the computation of the synthetic seismograms. The first one is
based on the magnitude of the events listed in the earthquake catalogue, and
located within the active seismogenic zones. This is the standard approach,
used in most of the NDSHA computations performed up to now. It is adequate for
countries, like Italy, where the catalogue can be reasonably considered
complete for events of M=5 and above. When the catalogue completeness is barely
adequate, another approach can be adopted for the definition of the earthquake
sources. It uses the seismogenic nodes identified by means of pattern
recognition techniques applied to morphostructural seismic zonation (MSZ), and
increases the reference magnitude by a constant variation tuned thanks to the
safety factor. The two approaches have been compared for Italy using the safety
factor 2.0: they mostly produce comparable hazard maps. As the two sets are
fully independent and the catalogue is very long, this implies a validation of
the seismogenic nodes method and a tuning of the safety factor at about 2.
Notable exception is seen in the Central Alps, where nodes tend to overestimate
the "observed" hazard, and in southeastern Sicily, where the nodes
underestimation is only apparent and can be negligible within experimental
errors.
