It seems that the evidence does not satisfy IRG PnP 2.1.1.c, so it should be rejected.
IRG PnP 2.1.1.c says: characters must be used in script as characters in text. Logos and images used separately from running text are not acceptable.

We utterly reject the nonsensical comment made here and for many other UK characters by Wang Xieyang. A logo is "a small design used as the symbol of an organization, etc." (Chambers Dictionary, 1998), and quite obviously none of the characters proposed by the UK are either logos representing an organization or embedded images. The examples clearly show that the proposed characters are used in running text in exactly the same context as other encoded CJK unified ideographs.

I am really tired of seeing the act of pretending "I don't know". The fact that the structure of this character seems normal doesn't prove it's not a logo or picture kind of thing. What's more, I must classify that I won't oppose to encode 符咒字 if real running text can be found, for example:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20700
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20701
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20702
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20703
等等.
Here are my questions to UK:
1. What does UK take 符箓? Is 符箓 a character?
2. If a character is used only as a part of 符箓, does UK think it is a normal CJKUI?
3. Why this comment is not under these characters?
a) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20710
In the evidence, it says 若因治病，上加"XXXX", it is very obvious saying how to write/draw a 符箓. It's not a running text.
What's more, the structure on the right bottom is not the claimed ⿰三三 but a 坤卦(☷, U+2637).
b) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20796
You must be kidding me that this is running text.
c) https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2021/app/?find=UK-20752
This actually an example of 符箓, the one on the left contains a weired character on the bottom and four character seems normal. If this can be running text, then why won't the one on the bottom encoded?
I'd like UK to answer my question direcly and clearly in a sensical way.

One more thing to clarify, I don't oppose to encode 符咒字, but I do oppose to encode them this way. The reasons are as follows:
1. It's not every 符咒字, even the ones used very frequently have an evidence that satisfys IRG PnP. It's meaningless that we encode them seperately and unprofessionally.
2. According to the comments in todays meeting, some experts still don't realize the complexity and the large quantity of 符咒字. We should discuss the ways of encoding them and unifying them thoroughly and change our PnP. It's better that we face the problems of 符咒字 and encode them as 符咒字 than pretend them as normal characters and make others belive this.

辞海 第六版（彩图本）P642：


p1459

现代汉语词典 第7版，P402