The evidence presented conflicts with the version of GB/T 12052-1989 provided by China (Mr Zhang Zhoucai) for the preparation of the original version of the URO (attached below).
This version clearly reflects the shape of the current U+5381厁, not the proposed ⿱斜㔾.
My understanding is that this block of GB/T 12052-1989 supports Korean language bibliographic data used in the National Library of China. We should be able to confirm the shape based on that data. Or, perhaps Korea can provide independent evidence supporting that shape. It is possible that there is a ⿱斜㔾 used in Korean, but the current evidence alone is not acceptable.

1. GK-6841 (or G1-7D47) and GK-6863 (or G1-7D69) were removed from U+58ED 壭 from U+5655 噕 respectively because they don't match the ones in GB 12052.
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4008.pdf
https://unicode.org/wg2/docs/n4104.pdf (see Resolution M58.03)
This means that the form in the original GB 12052 is regarded as the final authority.

2. Actually, the virtual row 93 of GB 12345 is not always correct either. 0x7D3A is missing 罒, but 72-20 (0x6834) the original GB 12052 is not. And GK-6834 (or G1-7D3A) is mapped to U+56D5 囕, with 罒.

Citing http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4008.pdf is circular reasoning by referring to a possibly bad decision based on the same faulty evidence and cannot be accepted. We still need independent confirmation of the existence and form of this character.

I would like to ask the experts in Korea to assess U+5381厁 versus #00397 (aka UTC-03191), specifically whether they refer to the same ideograph, and if so, which form is correct. The other form should therefore be treated as an error form. If they are to be treated as separate ideographs, additional evidence is necessary, and perhaps the experts in Korea can supply it.

Further discussion is necessary.

- KR agrees with Mr. Lee Collins
- KR did not see any document containing UTC-03191 glyph.
- When a new evidence containing UTC-03191 glyph is provided in the future, KR will review the evidence and post KR opinion. Until then, KR suggests not to encode UTC-03191.