I have no agenda except to follow the science and not to resort to calling on "miracles" to explain away uncomfortable facts that don't agree with a favorite thesis.
As for the locks of hair not matching, that is not difficult to achieve. . . the hair is one area where the pigment is thicker than the facial tones and it was applied on both sides. The locks have a greater thickness than other areas of the image, and one side's lock is used as a substrate for the other's application. Under magnification, the other side's hair can be seen where they don't quite match. There are other areas that don't quite "register accurately as well, in the eyes and teeth, both areas with thick pigments that are opaque because of the heavy application of the pigment necessary for the white to stand out. These mis-registrations, in my opinion, are evidence of artifice, not miraculous creation.
As far as I know, the Mannopello Veronica has not been removed from its reliquary and all examination has been done through the poorly blown glass. The veil itself has never been straightened, measured, checked for thickness at various locations on the cloth, etc., and all examinations have been done in situ, distortions and all. This is not a way to do good science.
In 2010 the conclusion by Jaworski was that at this point Fanti’s information indicates that info points to it being linen but that further analysis is needed.
But let me remind you again, that Fanti thinks that 3d imaging shows the Veil and the Shroud to show the same tortured body. Fanti also thinks that the lock of hair has yet to be explained. In addition, I have seen nothing that states there is pigment on that lock of hair.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/jaworski.pdf