Unifiable to 𧍂 (U+27342)?

U+27342 comes from Kangxi, with the given text: 【備考】【申集】【虫字部】 【五音篇海】音肴。又音豪。 which indicates they are the same character.

For ⿱又有/肴:
⿱又有 (A03305-013) ~ 肴 (A03305)
⿰山⿱又有 (B00831-005) ~ 崤 (B00831)
⿰飠⿱又有 (B05734-001) ~ 餚 (B05734)

Since ⿰言⿱又有 (C13276-008) ~ 𧩭 (C13276-002), ⿱又有/肴 may be supported in lvl2.

Suggest not to unify if no more cases can be found because both ⿰虫肴 and 𧍂 (U+27342) are kind of common as head characters in ancient books.
Examples for 𧍂 (U+27342)

改併五音類聚四聲篇海，成化丁亥重刊本

同文书局版《康熙字典》

新校經史海篇直音，明嘉靖刻本

續字彙補，和刻本

字彙補，彙賢齋本

To add to Kushim's comment in #15443, here are the variants from MOE Dictionary:




Suggest China to update the glyph of 𧍂 (U+27342) to ⿰虫肴, unify GKJ-00436 to 𧍂 (U+27342).

As #15445/#15452 mentioned, ⿰虫肴 and ⿰虫⿱又有 are surely the variants, both of them are stablly used in dictionaries, that means both of them are valuable in historical usage process. So we don't need to unify the 正字 to the variant form while the variant one has been encoded in the previous, and should encode them separatly.

Even if the various forms of 𧍂 (U+27342) are stably used in dictionaries, the fact that there were historically two forms considered more or less canonical does not mean we need to disunify them.

First and foremost these are different canonical shapes in different dictionaries, and there is no contrast in shapes in the same dictionary.

Second there is also no contrast in meaning in the same running text.

There are variants without a doubt and the abstract shape is the same which is more than sufficient for unification.

If some digitization projects wish to display one canonical form over the other, that is solely within the realm of Ideographic Variation Sequences. ISO 10646 is a character standard, not a glyph standard.

In previous IRG meetings, we already have historical precedence of unification to an existing Extension B character, then subsequently updating the Extension B character to take the canonical shape. Some of these characters even involved the GHZ single sourced characters, as-is this case. IRG should be consistent in its handling of these cases.

We must also take into account that different dictionaries in different ages have different standard for what is considered "canonical". We cannot simply encode another variant as a different character because some dictionaries at some historical period considered another form as canonical. Otherwise, all the characters containing "歩" instead of "步" need to be disunified as "歩" is considered the canonical form historically in Tang dynasty while "步" is considered the canonical form in China in modern day.

Another case in WS2021 where we have unified the canonical shape to the non-canonical shape found in some authoritative dictionaries:

Another case in WS2017, which involves a taboo character, however it was not found as a head character.