kFanqie 力冉反

It says similar to 檢 (U+6AA2), but it's not clear how they are related from the evidence. Is there some other evidence?

Our "similar" includes those whose relationship is neither confidently affirmed nor denied, which does not necessarily mean they are variants. Sorry for the confusion.

Per the submission rules for WS2021, IRG has requested that similar looking characters without being confirmed variants should also be included in the "Similar" field.

Potentially unifiable to 撿.

Based on the text it seems this is a variant of 撿. It is common for the 扌 and 牜 components to be mixed up, and it is probably not worth disunifying them into separate characters as it does not help in indexing or searching. I am unsure if IRG may prefer to add this to the UCV as level 2.

It is too confusing to unify Components 扌 and 牜. The submitted evidence shows it is the variant of 𣫍 (U+23ACD), and 𣫍 (U+23ACD) must be the variant of 歛 (U+6582). There is one fanqie of 歛 (U+6582) as 良冉切 in 廣韻, and the fanqie of 撿 (U+64BF) is also 良冉切. The initial shengmu of 良 and 力 are both 來母, that means 良冉切 and 良冉切 mean the same pronunciation. However, the most common pronunciation of 撿 (U+64BF) now is jiǎn in Putonghua, gim2 in Cantonese, 검 in Korean and so on, which means “to pick up”. 來母 would not become [k] (>[ʨ]) commonly, that means the variant of 撿 (U+64BF) is different from the current most common definition of 撿 (U+64BF). If we unify this character with 撿 (U+64BF), that will be hard for the information processing on semantic meaning.

Disagree with unification. It would be counter productive to have at UCV of 扌 and 牜. If there are texts that confuse 扌 and 牜 better simply to consider the text unreliable and look to other texts for confirmation or rejection of a character.