It says right there that the purpose of a mug shot is also to identify a suspect. Even when the police gets a hold of someone and can take a photo there is no reason to think that identification is no longer necessary. Identification is probably what most criminal cases are about and being able to get to know someone’s name and to make a photo of them is not the actual relevant part of the identification for solving a crime.

Conceptually I would agree that this is more similar to facial composites (it’s a recreation of the suspect’s face not directly via a photograph but via some other means, either memory or, in this case, DNA) but comparing it to mug shots is not absurd or even weird. There is even a good argument one could make that this is conceptually more similar to mug shots than facial composites: both photos and DNA don’t rely on someone else via memory but directly on the suspect.

Since mug shots are well known making the comparison for the sake of a headline makes perfect sense. The term facial composite is much less well known. The conceptual similarity is there either way.

I think the comparison very clearly communicates why this new way of creating mug shots is very useful and as such there is nothing wrong with it.