unify to 虷 (U+8677)?

Unify to 虷 (U+8677). As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters. But as the code books do not provide readings or meanings for the characters listed we have to guess what the true identification of the character is. In this case it is almost certainly a mistake or variant for U+8677. Unify according to UCV principle a-1 (differences in stroke initiation direction).

Evidence enlarged:


The first stroke of the right-hand component goes top-right to bottom-left. 千 and 干 are different components and thus not unifiable.

“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified. If we encode these two shape to one code point, the disunification is just a matter of time.
If we have to confirm that this is not a wrongly printed glpyh, we can reject it according to IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2), the evidence satisfy none of the items under IRG PnP 2.2.1.d.(2).

This seems to be a misprint of 虷. In other version of telegraph codes, 9168 is mapped to 虷.

It is ridiculous to say "“千” and “干” are apparently different characters and they can't be unified" without providing any evidence for the meaning of the ⿰虫千. The telegraph code book is not a dictionary but only lists characters in current use, so ⿰虫千 must be presumed to be a mistake/variant of 虷 unless reliable evidence that it is a separate character can be produced.

《Dictionary of the Foochow Dialect》P1838

To my point of view, unifying “千” to “干” is ridiculous. Though their shape is similar to each other, they are definately different characters. If the componet "千" is written as “干”, we call it a wrong glyph but a variant. If “千” can be unified to “干” without any solid evidence, considering every character that contains a component of “千” can be written as “干”, should we unify them all? The answer is absolutely NO. That's why I oppose to unify the two characters but reject the evidence. Hence the new evidence is provided, I think there is no need to withdraw the character.

What's more, I believe UK said "As telegraph code books should only list relatively common characters that are well-attested elsewhere, any unencoded characters must be variants or mistakes of already-encoded characters" and suggest to unify ⿰虫千 to 虷 (U+8677) based on this, I'd like to know which character should UTC-03171 be unified to.

https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UTC-03171

So if the evidece is not clear enough, we'd better reject the evidence but unify the proposed glyph by inference.

Disagree to unify with 虷 (U+8677) per new evidence

kTaiwanTelegraph 9168