Again, let's see what Hauser really said. The original paper
"Découverte d’un squelette du type du Neandertal sous l’abri inférieur
du Moustier" is available here:
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5864483g/f16.image.r=hauser?rk=42918;4#
On page 6 it reads:
"le nez avait été protégé par deux morceaux de silex, dont l'un
appliqué sur le dos du nez et l'autre.sur sa base. La position de ce
dernier silex, qui est en forme de plaque, montre que les narines
n'étaient pas dirigées de haut en bas, mais d'arrière en avant, avec
une légère inclinaison de haut en bas."
(the nose had been protected by two pieces of flint, one of which is
applied to the back of the nose and the other on its base. The
position of this last flint, which is plate-shaped, shows that the
nostrils were not directed downwards, but forwards, with a slight tilt
downwards.)
In other words, Hauser did not infer the shape of the nose from an
original soft tissue impression, but indirectly from the position of
two pieces of flint.
That's a highly questionable approach to soft tissue reconstruction.
We don't even know if the flints were in their original position
around the profile of the nose. Fig. 5 in that paper does not all
justify any reconstruction of the nose on the basis of these flints
(labeled 1 and 2), or the suggestion that the nostrils were pointing
forward.