The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable.

Agree with comment by Ken Lunde.

Suggest to code 14-2725 (⿰糹虖) instead of 9-763C.

It's highly likely that 14-2725 would be unified with 9-763C. There is also 15-5721 which also has the same variant relationship with 2-5E4E. Inevitably TCA will need to register an IVD to support both person's name. TCA should preferably code the character which uses more common components.

Taiwan's ID card sample is shown below.

This is not simply table, this table already provides a lot of information it’s contains:
Second column:the CNS code;
Third column:household registration internal code;
Fifth column:ID No.;the first letter in ID No. indicates regions, such as A=Taipei City, B=Taichung City; and The second letter indicates sexes. The first 7 numbers are a serial number, and the last number is a check digit. (more information see https://goodearth.com.tw/ge_sys/index.php?ctrl=newsletter&id=770));
The last column: a record of the person himself, spouse/ father/ mother/ adoptive father/ adoptive mother. See the below.


TCA would like to highlight the fact that sometimes the personal names only have the shape of the character rather than the pronunciation or meaning. For example, in the Kangxi Dictionary, some characters are only explained by the names of people or place.


Does the TCA suggest that the review of names should be based on glyphs only? Of course, under the UCV rules.

The evidences were produced by the household registration system and stamped by the M.O.I. official seal. TCA think the government document is very heavy evidence.

TCA agrees that the right component is more commonly used, and Henry's suggestion is correct, TCA submitted the character set considering the frequency of use, and the high one was submitted first. However, if we look at it from the IVS point of view, the basic character should be the one suggested by Henry. If IRG agree, TCA accept to change the submitted glyph to TE-2725.

Given that the glyph has been updated, SC=11, TC=17.
The IDS should be changed from ⿰糹𧆠 to ⿰糹虖.

The evidence is missing.

Still no evidence provided. If no further evidence made available move to pending.

Because of the common component, TCA has agreed to change the proposed form, so EVIDENCE is unable to provide the Table produced by the Household System, and TCA can only provide the BMP form used by the MOI in the early days as Evidence.

The whole page evidence as below: