The Vietnamese word of V-F17A4 is đa t, and the English meaning is “expensive selling” according to VNPF. The evidence shows the Vietnamese meaning is “gia qua cao”, which the three words are all Sino-Vietnamese words(漢越詞 漢越詞 ) and the corresponding Hanzi/Nho character are 價過高 價過高 . It means the semantic element is 售, and the phontic elemant is 坦(đa t,<-n). So the radical should be changed to “30.0 口” from “32.0 土”.

口 30.0
The semantic is 售, not 坦.

Agree about semantic, but most user familiar with Han script would classify this under the first radical on the right, 32. 30 is completely counterintuitive. We are fine with using 30 to satisfy IRG requirements, but will continue to support 32 for real world applications

The Vietnamese word of V-F17A4 is đa t, and the English meaning is “expensive selling” according to VNPF. The evidence shows the Vietnamese meaning is “gia qua cao”, which the three words are all Sino-Vietnamese words(漢越詞 漢越詞 ) and the corresponding Hanzi/Chữ Nho are 價過高 價過高 . It means the semantic element is 售, and the phontic elemant is 坦(đa t,<-n). So the radical should be changed to “30.0 口” from “32.0 土”.

The Vietnamese word of V-F17A4 is đắt, and the English meaning is “expensive selling” according to VNPF. The evidence shows the Vietnamese meaning is “giá quá cao”, which the three words are all Sino-Vietnamese words(漢越詞) and the corresponding Hanzi/Chữ Nho are 價過高. It means the semantic element is 售, and the phontic elemant is 坦(đất,<-n). So the radical should be changed to “30.0 口” from “32.0 土”.
I understand Lee's comment in v2, but it's best to confirm the radical according to the rationale in the IRG work.

There is no IRG requirement to use the technically correct radical. Given that we're now dealing with nearly 100K CJK Unified Ideographs, assigning the most intuitive radical is the prudent thing to do. In other words, change Radical back to 32 土.