Thank you Henry for bringing out precedence cases. If ⿰虫肴 is to be unified with 𧍂 (U+27342), I suggest China change the glyph of U+27342 𧍂 to be ⿰虫肴 and the source reference to be GKJ-00436.
I agree with Henry, the evidences are sufficient for encoding. The comment #13468 shows a small history of the glyph transition, it does not provide any unification suggestion.
It quotes 龍龕手鑑. The 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）gives the shape 𧍂, which was then inherited by 四聲篇海 and many other dictionaries.
In the 三國志 evidences 「東行至⿰虫肴」, ⿰虫肴 is a place name, likely a corrupted form of 崤.
Given that ⿰虫肴 is the desired form, it is a bit unfortunate that the Kangxi dict editors does not normalize it to ⿰虫肴. Since it is too late to change the representative glyph of 𧍂, I suggest coding it separately.
The new evidence gives ⿰犭⿱宀𨐌, which should be unifiable with ⿰犭宰 as is shown on the comment above (#14839). This evidence also supports the UCV candidate 辛/𨐌 proposed in IRGN2675.
The text is from 淮南子, a popular alternative text is 缶.
Evidence
Thank you for the alternative evidences, they are very helpful as they support my point in comment #15440 that its popular alternative text is 缶. I don't think ⿰缶央 is a misidentified glyph as the glyph is clear.
From the original text 「扣甕拊⿰缶央相和而歌」, we can learn that ⿰缶央 is very likely a percussion instrument because you can strike it when you are singing.
According to 爾雅疏, 「盎謂之缶。孫炎云，缶，瓦器，郭云，盆也。詩陳風云，坎其擊缶，則缶是樂器」. 爾雅 defines 盎 as 缶. Both 盎 and 缶 are instruments.
I think ⿰缶央 is a variant of 盎. The phonetic component of ⿰缶央 should be 央, and according to 說文: 「盎, 从皿央聲」, the radical is shifted from 皿 to 缶. Because 盎 is 缶 according to 爾雅, ⿰缶央 is a reasonable variant. Although it looks like 缺, it is definitely not a misprint of 缺 since 缺 is never an instrument in the historical context. This also explains why the popular alternative text of ⿰缶央 is 缶.
The alternative text 缻 is also okay because 缻 is also a variant of 缶, according to KX dict:【集韻】缶或从瓦作缻.
The new evidences give ⿰火⿱天角, potentially unifiable with ⿰火⿱夭角. The Erudition database transcribes them as 燆, but there is no confirmative evidence to support that ⿰火⿱夭角 is a variant of 燆.
I agree with Andrew that ⿰口𣆀 is an error form of ⿰口聃. After all, 𣆀 is a G4K character from the text 「遂使羲文周孔之教夷為𣆀喜鐘呂之術惜哉」, sourced from 易像鈔（文淵閣四庫全書）11:39a. The 周易玩辭集解（文淵閣四庫全書）7:11b gives 耼, which is also a variant of 聃. So 𣆀 is also a variant of 聃.
Many text in 正統道藏 can be dated back to 宋/元 dynasty. To supplement Andrew's comment #15454, the characters in 龍龕手鑑（南宋刊本）also consistently omit the 厶 component when the 鬼 is the left component.
Based on the pronunciation (音藿) provided in 梵音斗科, and the pronunciation (音喝) provided in the first evidence, it seems that 䚴 is a variant of ⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一, or vice versa. Anyway now that we have multiple ⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 evidences, and the right component ⿵冂⿱𠃍一 is not a common known variant of 月, better just keep ⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 and 䚴 coded separately.
I suggest 㼜 as the semantic variant with the following reasons:
1. 㼜 refers to the earthenware meaning of 盎
2. It is not to be confused with modern usage of 盎 such as 生機盎然
3. It shares the phonetic component 央 with ⿰缶央
4. The radical 瓦/缶 is often interchangeable
IRG Working Set 2021v6.0
Source: HUANG Junliang
Date: Generated on 2024-04-25
Unification
Thank you Henry for bringing out precedence cases. If ⿰虫肴 is to be unified with 𧍂 (U+27342), I suggest China change the glyph of U+27342 𧍂 to be ⿰虫肴 and the source reference to be GKJ-00436.
The previous shape can be registered as an IVD.
Current disunified but cognate examples:
U+2DF2D 𭼭 = U+764A 癊.
Attributes
Evidence
Here we can see 䳄 is between 𪀛 and 𪀹 in 新校經史海篇直音, while ⿰世鳥 is between 𪀛 and 𪀹 in 海篇朝宗.
▲ 新校經史海篇直音（明經廠刊本）卷2 folio 8b
▲ 陳明卿太史考古詳訂遵韻海篇朝宗（明崇禎刊本）卷7 23b/24a
Their entries are very similar, too.
▲ 新修絫音引證群籍玉篇（中華再造善本影印金刊本）卷25 folio 5b
It quotes 龍龕手鑑. The 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）gives the shape 𧍂, which was then inherited by 四聲篇海 and many other dictionaries.
In the 三國志 evidences 「東行至⿰虫肴」, ⿰虫肴 is a place name, likely a corrupted form of 崤.
Given that ⿰虫肴 is the desired form, it is a bit unfortunate that the Kangxi dict editors does not normalize it to ⿰虫肴. Since it is too late to change the representative glyph of 𧍂, I suggest coding it separately.
▲ 社會進化史（蔡和森，1927）pp. 172
▲ 雅尚齋遵生八牋（明萬曆刊本）卷9延年却病上 folio 50b
It provides additional evidence for UK-20785, UK-20786, and UK-20787.
▲ 籌辦夷務始末（故宮博物院影印清內府抄本）道光朝卷74 folio 4a
▲ 上清衆經諸真聖秘（明正統道藏本）卷2 folio 13
▲ 宋書（明萬曆二十二年刊南監本）卷67 folio 20a
▲ 宋書（明汲古閣刊本）卷67 folio 11a
▲ 謝康樂集（明天啓崇禎間七十二家集刊本）卷1 folio 6a
▲ 管城碩記（清康熙刊本）卷21 folio 4a
▲ 佩文韻府（清康熙刊本）卷8 folio 58b
▲ 御定歷代賦彙（清康熙刊本）外集卷12 folio 7a
As shown in the new evidences, the shape ⿱山皅 is stable across multiple sources. I suggest to encode it as-is.
▲ folio 6a
▲ 重修常州府志（明萬曆刊本）卷9上 folio 51a
▲ 武進縣志（清乾隆刊本）卷6上 folio 53b
And a higher resolution copy of the original evidence:
▲ 武進陽湖縣合志（清道光刊本）卷15 明職官表郡職 folio 5b
The new evidences prove that the shape is stable across multiple sources. I suggest to keep it.
▲ 饒平縣志（清康熙刊乾隆補修本）卷16 folio 4a
I think the new evidence is clearer than the original evidence.
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷44 folio 19
I think 皆用 means ⿰禾言 can be used in both 陽日 and 陰日.
Here is some new evidences:
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷44 folio 3
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷43 folio 7
This evidence gives ⿰禾⿱三口, likely an error of ⿰禾言, as we can see in this page 霐 is also misprinted as ⿱雨⿲氵𬺷厶.
These two pages also provide new evidences for
▲ 大明一統名勝志（明崇禎刊本）四川名勝志卷29 folio 20a
The new evidence gives ⿰犭⿱宀𨐌, which should be unifiable with ⿰犭宰 as is shown on the comment above (#14839). This evidence also supports the UCV candidate 辛/𨐌 proposed in IRGN2675.
▲ 钟秀芝, 《西蜀方言》, 上海: 上海大学出版社, 2017.01, ISBN 978-7-5671-2386-1, p. 599
▲ 藝文類聚（中華再造善本影印宋紹興刊本）卷39 folio 7
▲ 藝文類聚（上海古籍出版社，1999）
The text is from 淮南子, a popular alternative text is 缶.
From the original text 「扣甕拊⿰缶央相和而歌」, we can learn that ⿰缶央 is very likely a percussion instrument because you can strike it when you are singing.
According to 爾雅疏, 「盎謂之缶。孫炎云，缶，瓦器，郭云，盆也。詩陳風云，坎其擊缶，則缶是樂器」. 爾雅 defines 盎 as 缶. Both 盎 and 缶 are instruments.
▲ 爾雅疏（四部叢刊景印宋刊本）卷6 folio 6b
I think ⿰缶央 is a variant of 盎. The phonetic component of ⿰缶央 should be 央, and according to 說文: 「盎, 从皿央聲」, the radical is shifted from 皿 to 缶. Because 盎 is 缶 according to 爾雅, ⿰缶央 is a reasonable variant. Although it looks like 缺, it is definitely not a misprint of 缺 since 缺 is never an instrument in the historical context. This also explains why the popular alternative text of ⿰缶央 is 缶.
The alternative text 缻 is also okay because 缻 is also a variant of 缶, according to KX dict:【集韻】缶或从瓦作缻.
▲ 新編古今事文類聚（明經廠刊本）續集卷22 folio 21a
▲ 賦苑（明萬曆刊本）卷5上 folio 49a
▲ 唐類函（明萬曆刊本）卷100 folio 4b
▲ 佩文韻府（清康熙刊本）卷26下 folio 177a
▲ 駢字類編（清雍正刊本）卷145 folio 53a
Per new evidences, I think the shape ⿱唯角 is stable enough for encoding purpose.
▲ 通典（中華書局，2016，ISBN 978-7-101-11426-3）pp. 120
The new evidence above provides the exact normalized form ⿺鼠多. If we accept the new evidence, we can remove the "Normalized glyph" label.
▲ 淨土晨鐘（世界書局，1937）pp. 66
▲ 字彙補（清康熙刊本）例言 folio 6b
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷5 folio 25
▲ 金鼓洞志（清光緒武林掌故叢編本）卷6 folio 6b
This evidence gives ⿱亼⿰⿳𠆢𠆢𠆢⿳𠆢𠆢𠆢, potentially unifiable to ⿱𠆢⿰⿳𠆢𠆢𠆢⿳𠆢𠆢𠆢 in other evidences.
▲ 金文最（清光緒江蘇書局刊本）卷41 folio 19a
The text is from 完顏璹《全真教祖碑》.
▲ 駢雅（明萬曆刊本）卷1 folio 1a
Here is a new evidence from 《駢雅》:
▲ 駢雅（明萬曆刊本）卷3 folio 10b
▲ 《梵音斗科》（清雍正初刊本）卷下 folio 71a
First mentioned in Yuan's comment #15184 on UK-20687, this page also provides new evidences for other UK characters such as
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷43 folio 8
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷45 folio 16
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷46 folio 12
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷43 folio 7
The new evidence gives exactly the ⿰口屠 form.
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷82 folio 1
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷214 folio 1
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷214 folio 9
The new evidences give ⿰火⿱天角, potentially unifiable with ⿰火⿱夭角. The Erudition database transcribes them as 燆, but there is no confirmative evidence to support that ⿰火⿱夭角 is a variant of 燆.
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷16 folio 19
▲ 景定建康志（清嘉慶6年刊本）卷19 folio 12a
I think the new evidence should be clear enough to determine the shape.
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷83 folio 4a
I think this is the source of the original evidence.
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷89 folio 2b
I think this is where the original evidence is sourced.
Also provides evidence for UK-20670 and UK-20729.
▲ 上清大洞真經玉訣音義（明正統道藏本）folio 3
According to the new evidence, 皛⿱巴⿰巴巴 is the name (諱) of 北酆都鬼相魂.
▲ 蓝德康, 松冈荣志: 《汉字海》, 北京: 华语教学出版社 & 北京: 北京中易中标电子信息技术有限公司, 2018.8, ISBN 978-7-5138-1500-0, p. 4
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷83 folio 7
▲ 上清靈寶大法六十六卷（王契真，明正統道藏本）卷36 folio 2
▲ 上清靈寶大法（明正統道藏本）卷6 folio 2b
It also provides new evidence for UK-20789, UK-20790, UK-20791 and UK-20792.
▲ 題韻直音篇（明成化刊本）卷5 folio 16b
In the new evidence, the author 章黼 clearly noted that ⿰前刂 is a variant of 剪.
▲ 大明會典（明正德刊本）卷158 folio 11b, 12a
In the new evidence, ⿰山甬峪 is likely an error of 崅峪, a township in 山东省泰安市.
▲ 籌辦夷務始末（故宮博物院影印清內府抄本）道光朝卷63 folio 38b
I agree with Andrew that ⿰口𣆀 is an error form of ⿰口聃. After all, 𣆀 is a G4K character from the text 「遂使羲文周孔之教夷為𣆀喜鐘呂之術惜哉」, sourced from 易像鈔（文淵閣四庫全書）11:39a. The 周易玩辭集解（文淵閣四庫全書）7:11b gives 耼, which is also a variant of 聃. So 𣆀 is also a variant of 聃.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Per UCV 441, 鬼 and ⿱甶儿 are unifiable.
▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏南宋刊本）卷2 folio 60a
See also different 魁 in historical context:
▲ https://zi.tools/zi/%E9%AD%81
Editorial
Other
▲ 法海遺珠（明正統道藏本）卷8 folio 18
▲ 靈寶玉鑑（明正統道藏本）卷8 folio 14
The evidence above shows that 䚴 is also the name (諱) of 玉皇上帝.
▲ 道法會元（明正統道藏本）卷30 folio 12
Based on the pronunciation (音藿) provided in 梵音斗科, and the pronunciation (音喝) provided in the first evidence, it seems that 䚴 is a variant of ⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一, or vice versa. Anyway now that we have multiple ⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 evidences, and the right component ⿵冂⿱𠃍一 is not a common known variant of 月, better just keep ⿰言⿵冂⿱𠃍一 and 䚴 coded separately.
Data for Unihan
I suggest 㼜 as the semantic variant with the following reasons:
1. 㼜 refers to the earthenware meaning of 盎
2. It is not to be confused with modern usage of 盎 such as 生機盎然
3. It shares the phonetic component 央 with ⿰缶央
4. The radical 瓦/缶 is often interchangeable