According to TCA norms, the silk radical should be normalized to 糹.

This glyph is used for personal name, so it is not normalized.

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.

IRGN2486 (TCA's submission for WS2021) indicates that the evidence image is from the household service database, from which the name on each person's ID card is printed. It is not simply a code chart; it is an official government document with legal effect. For further explanation, please see IRGN2546.

The issue here is about regional conventions, which can influence whether to normalize or not. Such inconsistencies are pervasive and systemic in T-source ideographs in recent Extension blocks, starting from Extension E. UCS is a character encoding standard, not a glyph encoding standard.

TCA understands your viewpoint. (From my perspective, I agree with your point. )
The issue is, when the characters are normalized, they might not be what people or scholars who use them actually need. TCA has been deliberating on how to strike a balance between the two.
When submitting the WS2024 character set or others, TCA will try its best to select forms that follow Taiwan regional conventions.