纵观法庭科学和其相关学科分支，学术研究人员和司法鉴定实践者对“同一认定”概念的理解存在着不同程度的偏离，其主张为“可以从潜在的一组来源中确定唯一的来源”。特别是近年来，在“同一认定”作为一种鉴定意见的实践发展进程中，关于“同一认定”的理解和认识仍停留在原有阶段，实践中基本没有实质性的改变[1]。更重要的是，专业协会和司法鉴定实践者舍弃了正式的意见决策论的概念来界定“同一认定”的本质，主要的难题是我们难以把握鉴定意见结果可取还是不可取的衡量尺度（如，利用效用函数）。在该领域现有的研究基础上，本论文引入并介绍了效用函数及损失函数的基本概念，同时特别提及他们在司法鉴定同一认定领域中的应用。本文强调，正确地理解同一认定意见决策工具，不仅可以减少“个人的”主观影响，而且还展示了如何将该理论与现实中的意见判断问题的构成特点联系起来。“,”Throughout the forensic science and its adjacent branches, academic researchers and forensic practitioners continue to diverge to some extent in their perception and understanding of the notion of‘individualization’, which is the claim to reduce a pool of potential donors of a forensic trace to a single source. In particular, recent shifts to refer to the practice of individualization as a decision have been revealed as being a mere change of label [1], leaving fundamental changes in thought and understanding still pending. Additionally, professional associations and practitioners shy away from embracing the notion of decision in terms of the formal theory of decision in which individualization may be framed, mainly because of dififculties in dealing with the measurement of desirability or undesirability of the consequences of decisions (e.g., using utility functions). Building on existing research in the area, this paper presents and discusses fundamental concepts of utilities and losses with particular reference to their application to forensic individualization. The paper emphasizes that a proper appreciation of decision tools not only alleviates the subjective inlfuence of the individual, but also shows how such assignments can be meaningfully related to constituting features of the real-world decision problem to which the theory is applied. It is argued that the decisonalization of individualization requires such fundamental insight to initiate changes in the ifelds’ underlying understandings, not merely in their label.