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 噕 U+5655, not the proposed 爲𰆊.
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. Note that the document N4008 provided by Korea in support of this character merely cites the problematic version of GB/T 12052-1989 and does not supply independent evidence. It is possible that there is a 爲𰆊 used in Korean, but the current evidence alone is not acceptable.

Here is the conflicting version of GB/T 12052-1989 mentioned above.

▲ 段甜: 《韩国固有汉字分析》, 洛阳: 中国人民解放军外国语学院(Luoyang: PLA University of Foreign Language), 2007, P. 31

The new evidence this Korean character is used in 儒胥必知 (유서필지), but I don't have this book. If Korean experts can help UTC check the original source, it will be better.

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.

⿱爲𰆊 and 噕 are non-cognates.

According to page 2 of WG2 N4008 (the first URL in my comment above) which in turn cites the source reference document for K2, 噕 is read 고 (go) or 하고 (hago).
But according to the evidence provided by Eiso, ⿱爲𰆊 is read 한 (han).

So it is not clear why the virtual row 93 of GB 12345 changed ⿱爲𰆊 to 噕.

Is it possible that the new evidence that Eiso Chan supplied on 2021-12-15 is actually for U+7233 爳? The reason I ask is because the kMandarin property value of U+7233 爳 is han, which basically matches the Korean reading for the new evidence.

I would like to ask the experts in Korea to assess U+5655 噕 versus #02280 (aka UTC-03193), 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.

儒胥必知_04_051.jpg

儒胥必知_05_049

儒胥必知_07_051a

儒胥必知_11_048a

I could find at least 11 versions of Yuseo Pilji (儒胥必知).
I uploaded four versions of them showing the relevant page.

Note. Evidence 儒胥必知_BB_ppp will be referred to as "_BB" for short.

As you can see in versions _04 and _05,
the bottom component looks like "ㄱ".
These version are wood-cut printing.

However, as you can clearly see in versions _07 and _11 which are handwritten,
the bottom component is NOT "ㄱ", but "了 (complete)".

This is absolutely a non-expert's personal opinion.

The evidence from Yuseo Pilji (儒胥必知) gives the reading ᄒᆞᄂ (hʌn), which in Modern Korean I believe becomes "han" in the first syllable of a word. This and the variant forms in the same context suggests to me that UTC-03193 is in fact a variant of U+5655 爳, also read "han"

I see that Yuseopilji (유서필지, 儒胥必知) actually uses the form with 了.

But here is my question:
If U+7233 爳 is read ᄒᆞᆫ (modern 한 (han)), why does it use 了 instead of 𰆊?

It seems that the syllable-final -ㄴ (-n) is usually represented by 𰆊, not 了.
For example, U+516F 兯, U+5381 厁, and U+58ED 壭 all have 𰆊 in them, not 了.

Also, note that these are characters proposed by Korea (they are all K single source):

U+2D177 𭅷 – ⿱老𰆊
U+2D178 𭅸 – ⿱早𰆊
U+2D17E 𭅾 – ⿱訥𰆊
U+2D17F 𭅿 – ⿱愁𰆊
U+3018C 𰆌 – ⿱日𰆊
U+3018F 𰆏 – ⿱自𰆊
U+30190 𰆐 – ⿱里𰆊
U+30191 𰆑 – ⿱者𰆊
U+30192 𰆒 – ⿱秋𰆊

And other characters with 了 at the bottom don't seem to be related to idu:

U+4EA8 亨 – well-known non-idu character
U+374B 㝋 – G (HZ), J
U+25923 𥤣 – G (KX), T
U+26957 𦥗 – T
U+26AFC 𦫼 – G (KX), T, V
U+29AF6 𩫶 – G (4K)
U+2A7FD 𪟽 – V
U+2CEFA 𬻺 – G (PGLG)
U+2CF49 𬽉 – J
U+30349 𰍉 – SAT

One more thing:

兯 (U+516F) is 丷 + component for syllable-final -ㄴ (-n).
And the 丷 here is actually an abbreviated form of 為 (爲).

So,
abbreviated form of 爲/為 + component for syllable-final -ㄴ = 兯 (uses 𰆊), but
unabbreviated 爲/為 + component for syllable-final -ㄴ = 爳 (uses 了)?

Dr. CHO Sungduk sent me an excerpt from Hanguk Hanjaeo Sajeon (한국한자어사전, 韓國漢字語辤典; can be translated as the Dictionary of Sino-Korean Words in Korea) published by Dankook University (단국대학교).
As you can see, the entry uses 𰆊 as the bottom component while citing the same examples from the same book.

Since the different forms seem to come from the same text, the evidence so far suggests that UTC-03193 is a variant of U+7233

A new document, IRGN2516KRComments1.pdf, is posted on IRG #58 site:

https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg58/IRGN2516KRComments1.pdf

Comments are welcome.

Thx.

This is my comment on Korea's document above.

Although Korea has been normalizing shapes (i.e. not always closely following the shapes in original historical documents), in this particular case it sounds like Korea prefers sticking closely to the original form.

Since both the 𰆊-like form (N12) and the 了-like form (N23) are from the same hanja 隱 and represent the same thing, I think both of them can simply be regarded as the same component and can be normalized simply to the 𰆊-like form found in other idu/gugyeol characters (and it looks like 한국한자어사전 already did this).
So in my opinion ⿱爲𰆊 should still be kept.

If Korea has an explanation as to why this particular case should not be normalized, or if I did not understand Korea's document correctly, please let me know.

- I posted a "revised IRGN2516KRcomment1.pdf" (ROKFeedback (Updated on 2022.03.16))

- Note: Paragraph 3.4) was added in a revised version (2022-03-16)