Nearfield sonic‐boom theory shows that design modifications can result in reduction of the peak positive overpressure predicted for the critical low supersonic climb régime of an SST. Such modifications, however, may result in performance penalties. In order to perform the indicated tradeoff, values of structural damage potential and human response are needed for the predicted signatures. This paper explores these effects for two candidate SST configurations differing only in area distribution. Generalized structural response envelopes computed by transient time‐history methods indicate little difference in response to the different shaped signatures of the two designs even though the peak positive overpressures differ by a factor of about 1.7. In a simulator of the variable volume type, human subjects judged the signatures to be equally loud at the predicted peak overpressure ratio of 1.7. These results imply that the two designs do not differ significantly in structural‐damage potential or judged loudness and that peak positive overpressure is not a valid criterion for comparing different shaped signatures. Possible explanations of the results are discussed.