The current evidence is cited from the annotation of one modern edition of 《西京雜記》 published by 中華書局.
We can find out the context of the ancient editions, some editions used U+23591 𣖑, some used ⿰木匋. I showed some editions which used U+23591 𣖑 as below.
Based on UCV #87, they should be unified, and the pronunciations are both jìnɡ, but WS2017-00683 GDM-00205 is used in Beiliu, Guangxi, which maybe it is a Zhuang character, and WS2021-00804 GDM-00281 is used in Hubei.
𠂚 (U+2009A) and 𡗘 (U+215D8) are both the variant of 喬 according to the following dictionary.
I have asked one person from 富阳, 00022 is not related to 朵, but it's a real dialect character used in 富阳, which ～柱 means a pole to prop up when the person feels tired, and was written as 担柱 sometimes in 金华, but no one can say 00022 is also the variant of 担.
All in all, this character is different from 𠂚 (U+2009A) and 𡗘 (U+215D8), so it should be kept separately.
Mr. Huang's analysis at #2156 is right, but it's not better to unify these two glyphs based on the current UCVs. Maybe we need more sufficient evidence.
I can understand WS2021-04645 is the variant of U+29F50 𩽐, but it's not better to unify them because of the different counts of components, and the proposed UCV under #2159 will be very dangerous for IRG encoding works.
This is an ideograph of Empress Wu (則天文字, use IEW as below).
According to IRG discussion on WS2017-03181:T13-3A45 (https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/?id=03181), "Wuhou characters variant should be processed with ivd in principle."
We have encoded many characters of the variant of 證, please see here https://github.com/eisoch/irg/issues/89 .
It looks we need to discuss if we add the following pairs to UCV when we know they mean the same characters. Maybe we need to do more studies on this type of characters later.
unify to WS2021-04158 TE-387B
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
unify to WS2021-04132 T9-7665
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
It's not acceptable to unify this character to 丽 (U+4E3D), and I show the reasons as below.
1) The variant of 丽/麗 in 《篇海》 is ⿰𣄼𣄼 not ⿱一昍.
And ⿰𣄼𣄼 was included in 《字學三正》.
We can unify ⿰𣄼𣄼 to 丽 (U+4E3D).
2) The person mentioned in the evidence for UK-20897 was also written as 劉雨 in 《瓊州府志》 as below. This is why UK provides the variant relation between U+96E8 and it, and there is no any UCV to unify UK-20897 with 雨 (U+96E8).
Notice that 瓊州 or 琼州 here means 海南 (Hainan). Hainan had become province since 1988, which was a part of Guangdong Province before 1988.
[ WS2017-00525 ] unify to WS2017-00525 VN-F1D5E
VN-F1D5E has still been kept in WS2017 after the discussion at online IRG #56. Vietnam has provided new explanation on this character.
The left component is the phonetic element, which the tail vowel has been -t from -n like common sub-dialects of Yue-dialects, and the right component is the semantic element because of the meaning.
IRG should confirm if it's suitable to use Suzhou numerals in IDS. See IRGN2413, https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg53/IRGN2413_IDS_issues.pdf.
If yes, the current IDS should be changed to ⿰⿹丅〢⿱厶亅; if not, the IDS should be changed to ⿰⿹丅⿰丨丨⿱厶亅.
This character is famous in my hometown, Zhanjiang, Guangdong, because this character has been used for the name of Chikan Reservoir (赤坎水库) since 1957. But now, the place shown as below has been included in a part of Ruiyunhu Park (瑞云湖公园).
Please see more information of the corresponding Baidu entries.
https://baike.baidu.com/item/赤坎水库/8656901
https://baike.baidu.com/item/瑞云湖公园/12912616
The Baidu entry of 赤坎水库 shows this character is a wrong form of 库, which is cited from an old article published on Bihaiyinsha (碧海银沙) long long ago, and written by 骆国和 who is a famous reporter in Zhanjiang. He also revised this article and included in his book. However, I don't agree that it's a wrong form but a common vulgar form as the evidence provided by Xieyang Wang in #1049 shows.
Chikan dialect is one sub-dialect of Yue-dialects in Guangdong Province. 库 reads as [fu³³], and 夫 reads as [fu⁴⁴⁵], on the other hand, 裤 also reads as [fu³³], which is written as U+886D 衭.
Note that the phonetic system of Chikan dialect mentioned here is recorded by my colleagues and me for the Project for the Protection of Chinese Language Resources, which is different from Dr. Shao Huijun's book.
I can't find out which edition of 《集韻》 uses this character under the entry of 鵌(鷋). Maybe we need to check the real cited source of this character in 《中华字海》.
For the first piece of evidence, it looks we should encode it in the Enclosed Ideographic Supplement block like U+1F229 🈩, U+1F214 🈔 and U+1F22A 🈪.
Evidence
The situation of this character is similar to WS2015-00678:KC-00580 mentioned by Jaemin in https://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg49/IRGN2223JaeminComment-on-KC-00580.pdf .
The previous evidence shows the real ⿰犭索 glyph, and I think it's impossible to disunify ⿰犭⿳十冖系 and ⿰犭索 in future. Maybe it's better to encode the ⿰犭索 form. This evidence shows ⿰犭索 is related to a kind of monkey in Africa.
This character is the traditional form of WS2017-04561:GZ-0801302 https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?id=04561, and the phonetic element is 初 clearly, so the current glyph is acceptable.
The following is the evidence for the current glyph ⿰面米.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之六
Misidentified glyph
Although I provided the new evidence, but I think new evidence is not used for the Zhuang language. The original evidence shows the phonetic element is 來 without any doubt, so I suggest update the glyph to match the evidence as below, and we could encode the real ⿰面米 in future.
The current glyph looks not match the evidence, but I don't know how to get the rationale / semantics based on the evidence.
Misidentified glyph
I want to withdraw my comment now and hope to keep this character in WS2021, but I still don't understand the rationale for this character. I hope I can study more on it with the Korean experts after the meeting.
This is a Hakka character used in Meizhou (梅州), Jieyang (揭阳) and so on. The following picture is cited from https://m.weibo.cn/status/3836668715005329 .
The current glyph matches The Representation of Cantonese with Chinese Characters, but the IDS matches A Pocket Dictionary of Cantonese. UTC should choose which one should be kept, and we can confirm these two are both suitable for writing Cantonese but not suitable to unify.
▲ Bernard F. Meyer, Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary: Third Edition, New York: Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, 1947, P. 371
Based on the evidence, the phonetic element is the right part, which is 屚 or “漏之省”. 屚 is not a common character for Zhuang people or other people living in Guangdong and Guangxi. For the pronunciations of 漏, almost all the ones for different Yuè-dialects are all [lɐu꜄/꜅] or similar to it; the tones in some sub-dialects are 陽平, because the 陽去 in those sub-dialects have merged to 陽平, such as 云浮云城, 罗定, 郁南, 佛山高明, 湛江赤坎 and so on.
I can understand Conifer's comment, but this current glyph matches the PRC conventions based on the rationale more. It's acceptable for this normalization and it's better to accept it.
normalize the glyph to match the corresponding one on koreanhistory.or.kr as below?
UCV #153 shows U+5179 兹, U+7386 玆, U+8332 茲 could be unified when they are used as the components, and there is no K ref. for U+5179 兹, K ref. for U+7386 玆 is K0, K ref. for U+8332 茲 is K1, so it's better to match K0 one.
The Mr. Huang’s comment #2590 is useful and reasonable. The rationale of this type of characters(?) is similar to Chinese Jianzi Musical Notation. I will provide some comments as the feedback of IRGN2492.
Comment
I have showed the preliminary proposal to encode this type of characters via sequences in my feedback on IRGN2492.
This case is similar to U+2B9AB 𫦫. We can't get any useful semantic information from the face of U+2B9AB 𫦫, because it's not an ideograph as we know.
Please see https://moji.or.jp/mojikibansearch/info?MJ文字図形名=MJ057066 .
The reading for U+2B9AB 𫦫 is かたな (the above page shows the type of this Japanese reading is 訓読み, but I think it's not right). The top left component is U+30AB カ, the top right component is 万葉仮名 (まんようがな) ta which is used in 古事記 (こじき), 日本書紀 (にほんしょき) and 萬葉集 (まんようしゅう), please also see http://www1.kcn.ne.jp/~uehiro08/contents/kana/ta.htm, and the bottom component is U+30CA ナ.
Comment
I suggest other method on encoding this character in my feedback on IRGN2492.
Malaysia NB once submitted this character as the Chinese transliteration of the Malay word "tongkang" (توڠكڠ ڤچه in Jawi) in Malaysia, but Malaysia NB has not provided the evidence and source reference in IRGN1418.
In the book 《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》(Research on the Standardization of Cantonese Dialect Characters and Words for Information Processing) written by Prof. Hou Xingquan (侯兴泉) and Dr. Wu Nankai (吴南开), the corresponding character for this Cantonese word is U+64EA 擪.
IRG Working Set 2021v1.0
Source: Eiso CHAN
Date: Generated on 2026-07-26
Labels
Unification
unify to 𣖑 (U+23591)?
We can find out the context of the ancient editions, some editions used U+23591 𣖑, some used ⿰木匋. I showed some editions which used U+23591 𣖑 as below.
▲ 劉歆：《西京雜記》，四庫全書本，卷一
▲ 劉歆：《西京雜記》，照曠閣學津討原本，卷一
▲ 劉歆：《西京雜記》，津逮秘書本，卷一
Based on UCV #87, they should be unified, and the pronunciations are both jìnɡ, but WS2017-00683 GDM-00205 is used in Beiliu, Guangxi, which maybe it is a Zhuang character, and WS2021-00804 GDM-00281 is used in Hubei.
unify to 𦣼 (U+268FC)
The evidence shows the cited source is 《改併四聲篇海》. The following is the cited source.
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷九
In 《字學三正》, the author has showed the relation between GDM-00326 and U+268FC 𦣼.
▲ 《字學三正》，明萬曆辛丑年刻本，第一册
The following is the so-called ancient form of 自 in 《説文解字》.
unify to 𠂚 (U+2009A) or U+215D8?
I have asked one person from 富阳, 00022 is not related to 朵, but it's a real dialect character used in 富阳, which ～柱 means a pole to prop up when the person feels tired, and was written as 担柱 sometimes in 金华, but no one can say 00022 is also the variant of 担.
All in all, this character is different from 𠂚 (U+2009A) and 𡗘 (U+215D8), so it should be kept separately.
Suggest pending if there is no more sufficient evidence.
unify to 𫙓 (U+2B653)?
unify to 䳙 (U+4CD9)
unify to 𭧘 (U+2D9D8)
unify to 𮭑 (U+2EB51)
unify to 翵 (U+7FF5)
The evidence shows the glyph matches U+7FF5.
unify to 𪃓 (U+2A0D3)
The evidence has shown the rationale.
duplicates for G-Source
unify to 蟠 (U+87E0)
unify to 𰲲 (U+30CB2)
unify to 䥭 (U+496D)
This is an ideograph of Empress Wu (則天文字, use IEW as below).
According to IRG discussion on WS2017-03181:T13-3A45 (https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/?id=03181), "Wuhou characters variant should be processed with ivd in principle."
We have encoded many characters of the variant of 證, please see here https://github.com/eisoch/irg/issues/89 .
unify to 𰼺 (U+30F3A)?
unify to 𰽕 (U+30F55)
unify to 𤡮 (U+2486E)
unify to 𭷸 (U+2DDF8)
unify to 猍 (U+730D)
unify to 𰡜 (U+3085C)
unify to 𤞢 (U+247A2)
unify to WS2017-02513 UK-10799
unify to 𮭲 (U+2EB72)
unify to WS2017-04947 GHC-0047.00 UTC-03158
unify to 麉 (U+9E89)?
unify to 物 (U+7269)
It's the variant of U+7269 物 clearly according to the context of the evidence.
unify to 𪉈 (U+2A248)
unify to 𫓚 (U+2B4DA)
unify to 𰽆 (U+30F46)
unify to 𮡨 (U+2E868)
unify to 𮡶 (U+2E876)
unify to WS2017-02947 GDM-00112
unify to 𰛂 (U+306C2)
unify to WS2017-03073 KC-07574
unify to 𭺷 (U+2DEB7)
unify to 𮞢 (U+2E7A2)
unify to 𮘌 (U+2E60C)
unify to WS2017-01733 GZA-615331
unify to 𮓶 (U+2E4F6)
unify to 𭡏 (U+2D84F)?
Duplicates for G-Source
unify to 𭇮 (U+2D1EE)
unify to WS2017-03646 GZ-3272501
unify to 𮛝 (U+2E6DD)
SC should be kept if the glyph been kept.
unify to 𭠤 (U+2D824)
The submitted evidence for U+3003F 𰀿 KC-00038 is shown as below.
However, I think they are different character, so ROK should provide more information on these two characters (or glyphs).
unify to 𫣷 (U+2B8F7)
土/士 is one unifiable pair as UCV #312
土/士 is one unifiable pair as UCV #312
unify to 𠜋 (U+2070B)
This is a character for surname in ancient China, and U+2070B 𠜋 is the variant of U+4FB4 侴.
unify to 𬉦 (U+2C266)
unify to 𨳈 (U+28CC8)
unify to 奎 (U+594E)
If the submitter can provide the strong evidence to prove they are non-cognates, we should keep them separately.
U+4811 䠑 vs U+28146 𨅆
U+2A46D 𪑭 vs U+2A496 𪒖
unify to 𮥕 (U+2E955)
unify to 𰞝 (U+3079D)
Support to unify to 揔 (U+63D4).
大正新修大藏經續論疏部阿毘達磨俱舍論法義，卷第一
U+63D4 揔 is the variant of U+7E3D 總.
unify to 𮃨 (U+2E0E8)
unify to 𰤅 (U+30905)
unify to WS2017-00501 VN-F16C6
unify to 𢤳 (U+22933)
UCV #173, and the evidence has showed it's the variant of U+6192 憒
unify to 𭿍 (U+2DFCD)
U+26A8D 𦪍 vs U+26A74 𦩴
U+2EA1C 𮨜 vs U+9857 顗
U+3112E 𱄮 vs U+29949 𩥉
unify to 𮝙 (U+2E759)
unify to 㹛 (U+3E5B)
unify to 𮣉 (U+2E8C9)?
unify to 𭋿 (U+2D2FF)
unify to 𱈽 (U+3123D)
unify to WS2017-02622 GXM-00156
unify to 𰪎 (U+30A8E)
unify to 𱀸 (U+31038)
unify to 𭴩 (U+2DD29)
unify to 𭎋 (U+2D38B)
unify to 𭟣 (U+2D7E3)
unify to 𧾷 (U+27FB7)
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
unify to 𮆝 (U+2E19D)
unify to 𤥢 (U+24962)
unify to 𪜙 (U+2A719) or U+2B870?
unify to 𠈇 (U+20207)?
Similar glyph and same reading.
unify to 㴞 (U+3D1E)?
unify to 𦻬 (U+26EEC) possibly?
Agree with Lee's comment at #2014.
unify to WS2017-04447 KC-07700
T9-7665 and TE-387B are not duplicate, but they are unifiable. TE-387B matches the TCA conventions, so it’s better to keep TE-387B when IRG confirms this unification.
not unify to 𠠲 (U+20832)
U+20832 is the ancient variant form of U+529B according to the real sources.
▲ Kangxi Dictionary
▲ 《字彙補》
unify to 𣟀 (U+237C0)
unify to 嚟 (U+569F)?
It's not acceptable to unify this character to 丽 (U+4E3D), and I show the reasons as below.
1) The variant of 丽/麗 in 《篇海》 is ⿰𣄼𣄼 not ⿱一昍.
And ⿰𣄼𣄼 was included in 《字學三正》.
We can unify ⿰𣄼𣄼 to 丽 (U+4E3D).
2) The person mentioned in the evidence for UK-20897 was also written as 劉雨 in 《瓊州府志》 as below. This is why UK provides the variant relation between U+96E8 and it, and there is no any UCV to unify UK-20897 with 雨 (U+96E8).
Notice that 瓊州 or 琼州 here means 海南 (Hainan). Hainan had become province since 1988, which was a part of Guangdong Province before 1988.
unify to 𡃤 (U+210E4)?
unify to 僭 (U+50ED)?
unify to 擪 (U+64EA)?
unify to 攋 (U+650B)?
unify to 闑 (U+95D1)?
unify to 憃 (U+6183)?
unify to 虷 (U+8677)?
unify to 豻 (U+8C7B)?
unify to 魆 (U+9B46)?
unify to 猊 (U+730A)?
unify to 譭 (U+8B6D)?
unify to 偭 (U+506D)?
unify to 𬨲 (U+2CA32)
unify to 𭉛 (U+2D25B)?
unify to 𡁸 (U+21078)?
unify to WS2017-00665 KC-07393
unify to 𤒲 (U+244B2)?
unify to 𪹎 (U+2AE4E)
unify to 蘃 (U+8603)
unify to WS2017-00525 VN-F1D5E
VN-F1D5E has still been kept in WS2017 after the discussion at online IRG #56. Vietnam has provided new explanation on this character.
Attributes
The component 一 comes from 心 according to the evidence.
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
The evidence shows it's the name of a kind of fish.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
⿰恨鳥鶻 is a word meant a kind of bird on the evidence
The evidence shows it's the variant of 鸊.
The evidence shows it's related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows this character is related to a kind of bird.
The evidence shows the phonetic element is 押, and the semantic element is 鳥.
According to the evidence, it's a kind of insect.
Support Andrew's comment under #1970.
The RS values for the relevant encoded characters in the evidence are shown as below.
U+20B9B 𠮛 30.1
U+20BA1 𠮡 30.2
U+20BB0 𠮰 30.3
U+546C 呬 30.5
U+3576 㕶 30.4
U+20B9F 𠮟 30.2
U+53ED 叭 30.2
U+3564 㕤 30.2
U+53F6 叶 30.2
The meaning of this character is "to embrace", that is related to the human body, so the radical should be 130.0.
The left component is the phonetic element, which the tail vowel has been -t from -n like common sub-dialects of Yue-dialects, and the right component is the semantic element because of the meaning.
#1516 shows the rationale.
The radical should be the same as 肥.
The radical should be the same as 肫 and 胗.
The meaning is related to human and animal.
～⿰月口 (duzgaeuh) is a stable word meant "knee" on the evidence.
It's the variant of U+2DDCF 𭷏. The semantic element is 牙, and the phonetic element is 文.
The meanings are "hip" and "lumbar".
胬～ (noh haeu) is a stable word according to the evidence.
BTW, U+4E94 五 reads as haj here.
The semantic element is 果, and the phonetic element is 文.
The radical should follow the RS for U+4EB2 亲.
SC=18 if the radical been kept.
These is no need to update the FS value if the radical been kept.
The radical of 光 is 10.0
The meaning is related to "face".
▲ IRGN954AR
～⿰手蒙 (ngamz mungz) is a stable word meant the space between the fingers, which is related to the human body.
The radicals of 腻 and the unencoded ⿰肉艾 are both 130.0.
The IDS should be kept if the glyph been normalized as #1783 shows.
SC=20 if the glyph been kept.
The RS for the semantic element 背 is 130.5.
The radical should be as the same as U+2D375 𭍵, U+56ED 园 and so on.
The evidence shows this character "從肉" clearly.
The left component is 孑, not a 孑-like component for 子.
The left component 子 is the phonetic element.
～卵 is a common Hakka word meant "testis".
If yes, the current IDS should be changed to ⿰⿹丅〢⿱厶亅; if not, the IDS should be changed to ⿰⿹丅⿰丨丨⿱厶亅.
This character is the variant of 慶, and the bottom of 慶 is 夊 not 夂.
See the discussion in https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2017/app/index.php?id=01600
The radical of 年 is 51.0, which is the semantic element, and the phonetic element is 歲.
Evidence
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之二
Yi Bai's comment #2181 is right.
▲ 宫夢仁：《讀書紀數略》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二十二
▲ 喬中和：《元韻譜》，康熙刻本，卷四十一
Please see more information of the corresponding Baidu entries.
https://baike.baidu.com/item/赤坎水库/8656901
https://baike.baidu.com/item/瑞云湖公园/12912616
The Baidu entry of 赤坎水库 shows this character is a wrong form of 库, which is cited from an old article published on Bihaiyinsha (碧海银沙) long long ago, and written by 骆国和 who is a famous reporter in Zhanjiang. He also revised this article and included in his book. However, I don't agree that it's a wrong form but a common vulgar form as the evidence provided by Xieyang Wang in #1049 shows.
Chikan dialect is one sub-dialect of Yue-dialects in Guangdong Province. 库 reads as [fu³³], and 夫 reads as [fu⁴⁴⁵], on the other hand, 裤 also reads as [fu³³], which is written as U+886D 衭.
Note that the phonetic system of Chikan dialect mentioned here is recorded by my colleagues and me for the Project for the Protection of Chinese Language Resources, which is different from Dr. Shao Huijun's book.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之一
鯼 and 𩼕 are both totally different from 鯽.
It's better to read the whole page to get the complete information.
▲ 《大南一統志》，卷之四
This character is also found in the ancient Vietnamese book, which reads as chuồn.
It's the variant of 鴦.
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷四
▲ 丁韙良：《阿非利加近事》 in 《中西聞見錄》No. 36
The previous evidence shows the real ⿰犭索 glyph, and I think it's impossible to disunify ⿰犭⿳十冖系 and ⿰犭索 in future. Maybe it's better to encode the ⿰犭索 form. This evidence shows ⿰犭索 is related to a kind of monkey in Africa.
Maybe it's better to encode it in the Transport and Map Symbols block
▲洪希文：《續軒渠集》，文淵閣本，卷四
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之六
http://www.koreanhistory.or.kr/newchar/list_view.jsp?code=158530
▲ 《曹縣志》，清光緒刻本，卷之七
▲ 徐松：《宋會要輯稿》，1936年影印本
▲ 熊忠：《古今韻會舉要》，文淵閣本，卷一
▲ 羅泌：《路史》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷三十一
▲ 俞汝楫：《禮部志稿》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷四十二
The above glyph is not the same, but they are unifiable.
BTW, according to the above evidence, this character is the variant of U+74CA 瓊.
▲ 阮元修，陳昌齊等：《廣東通志》，影清道光刻本，卷三百二
▲ 《八閩通志》，明弘治刻本，卷之六十八
On the other hand, this person's name was also recorded as 顔慥.
▲ 凌迪知：《萬姓統譜》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二十六
It's useful to encode this character separately.
▲ 《新校經史海篇直音》，明嘉靖刻本，卷之一
▲ 《蘇州府志》，光緒九年刻本，卷第一百四十八
▲ 《明倫彙編》，古今圖書集成本，第一百七十三卷
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷三
▲ 徐光啓：《農政全書》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二十七
▲ 《浦江縣志》，清光緒刻本，卷十五
▲ 祝允明：《野記》，明刊本，卷四
▲ 朱國禎：《皇明大政記》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十一
▲ 《惠州府志》，光緒刻本，卷二十二
▲ 《嘉靖青州府志》，天一閣藏本，卷十
▲ 《土官底簿》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷下
▲ 《龍龕手鏡》，高麗本，卷第四
The following comment is for TCA.
Maybe it's better to change the glyph as below, and the corresponding T ref. should be TC-352C.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十六
▲ 李登：《重刊詳校篇海》，燕京藏萬曆刻本，卷之四
▲ online version of Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Giải
▲ 《駢雅訓籑》，後知不足齋叢書本，卷七上
▲ 彭大翼：《山堂肆考》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二百十五
▲ 王應麟：《玉海》，清刻本，卷第九十
▲ 《龍龕手鑑》，早稻田大學藏本，卷第一
▲ 張揖：《廣雅》，古今逸史本，卷九
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十五
▲ 《東方雜志》，1905年第10號，P. 41
▲ 《天津益世報》，1917年2月19日第483號，第十版
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之四
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》（中华书局, 1999年） p. 4832
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十六
▲ 《明神宗顯皇帝實録》，梁鴻志影本，卷之五百二十四
▲ 《寶慶府封建考》，古今圖書集成本
▲ 《高宗純皇帝實録》，卷之一百三十三
* This book is included in 清實録 series.
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之六
▲ 邢准：《·新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》，金刻本，卷第二十六
▲ 《法海遺珠》，卷八
▲ 《御定歷代賦彙補遺》，四庫全書本，卷五
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十五
▲ 胡世安：《異魚圖贊補》，四庫全書本，卷中
▲ 《嘉慶重修一統志》，四部叢刊本，卷三百九十八
▲ 『廣漢和辭典』，大修館書店，中卷，P. 639
▲ 楊樹達：《積微居金文説》，北京：中華書局，1997.12.，ISBN 9787101011906，卷七
▲ 《重刊詳校篇海》，明萬曆刻本，三卷後册
▲ 《嵩山少林寺輯志》，卷之十六
▲ 林俊：《見素續集》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷十二
▲ 吴幵：《優古堂詩話》，歷代詩話續編本，P. 275
▲ 邢准：《·新修絫音引證群籍玉篇》，金刻本，卷第十一
▲ 喬中和：《元韻譜》，康熙刻本，下平卷二十
▲ 俞慶瀾，張燦奎等：《宿松縣志》，1921年排印本，卷二
▲ 鄭賢章：《漢文佛典疑難俗字彙釋與研究》，成都：巴蜀書社，2016年，ISBN 978-7-5531-0700-4，P. 372
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》（中华书局, 1999年） p. 4831
▲ 《廣州府志》，光緒五年刻本，卷一百四十一
▲ 《南昌縣志》，1935年鉛印本，卷十六
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之六
▲ 《申報》，1880年3月5日第2456期，第四頁
▲ 《明仁宗實錄校勘記》，臺北：“中央研究院”歷史語言研究所，1962，卷二中
▲ 陳思，陳世隆：《兩宋名賢小集》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷三百五十九
▲ 何紹基：《重修安徽通志》，光緒刻本，卷三百十五
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十五
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之九
▲ 李登：《重刊詳校篇海》，燕京藏萬曆刻本，卷之三
▲ 何紹基：《重修安徽通志》，光緒刻本，卷二百七十六
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷三
▲ 徐松：《宋會要輯稿》，1936年影印本
▲ 鄭經世：《愚伏集》，景仁文化社，卷之十七
▲ 朱權：《天皇至道太清玉册》，上卷
▲ 《道法會元》，卷之一百一十一
▲ 盛昱：《雪屐尋碑録》，遼海叢書本，卷八
▲ 《文獻通考》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷三百十九
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之十四
▲ 陳子龍等：《皇明經世文編》，明崇禎平露堂刻本，卷之一百六十五
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷二
▲ 《重刊詳校篇海》，明萬曆刻本，三卷後册
▲ 《合併字學集篇》，明萬曆刻本，卷之一
▲ 《康熙聖祖仁皇帝敕撰御定駢字類編》，文淵閣四庫全書，卷四十六
▲ 《小説季報》，1918年8月1日第1期，第一集，P. 7
▲ 康熙聖祖仁皇帝：《御定分類字錦》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二十
▲ 魏了翁，方回：《古今考》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷三十四
▲ 黄庭堅，任淵：《山谷内集詩注》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二
▲ 徐應秋：《玉芝堂談薈》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷三十六
▲ 董誥：《欽定全唐文》，清嘉慶内府刻本，卷七百七
▲ 孫文胤：《丹臺玉案》，明崇禎十年孫氏仁壽堂本，卷之六
▲ 《汉语方言大词典》（中华书局, 1999年） p. 5397
▲ 《御定全唐詩》，文淵閣四庫全書，卷三百五
This poem is 劉復's 《長相思》, which is different from the 詞牌 of 長相思 after the Song Dynasty.
▲ 金㙆：《龜窩集》，景仁文化社本，卷之十三
▲ 何紹基：《重修安徽通志》，光緒刻本，卷二百二
▲ 李肇奎：《開縣志》，咸豐刻本，卷十三
▲ 董斯張：《廣博物志》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷二十八
▲ 黄道周：《新刻洪武元韻勘正切字海篇群玉》，明崇禎刻本，卷之七
▲ 《明倫彙編家範典》，古今圖書集成本，第二十卷
▲ 李昉等：《文苑英華》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷七百七十四
▲ 熊忠：《古今韻會舉要》，文淵閣本，卷十七
▲ 郭麐：《靈芬館詞四種·懺餘綺語》，娱園叢刻本，卷一
▲ 《青浦縣志》，光緒五年刻本，卷十九
The place name with this character mentioned in the above evidence is also recorded in 《民國新纂雲南通志》 because of 倪蜕.
▲ 《清實録仁宗睿皇帝實録》，卷之二百四十九
▲ 汪紱：《雙池文集》，清道光十四年一經堂刻本，卷之十
▲ 孫岳頒：《御定佩文齋書畫譜》，文淵閣四庫全書本，卷六十三
▲ 陸龜蒙：《笠澤叢書》，四庫全書本，卷五
However, the glyph should be normalized based on the similar normalization rule as KR Norm. 130-1.
▲ 《法海遺珠》，卷七
▲ 駱賓王：《駱賓王文集》，四部叢刊本，卷第七
▲ 宋敏求：《唐大詔令集》，文淵閣四庫全書，卷三十四
▲ 趙冕鎬：《玉垂集》，景仁文化社本，卷之十一
▲ 朱樟修，田嘉穀：《澤州府志》，雍正刻本，卷之三十四
▲ 劉敞：《公是集》，聚珍版叢書，卷四
▲ 黄省曾：《五嶽山人集》，明嘉靖刻本，卷第十九
▲ 《裴務齊正字本刊謬補缺切韻》，卷第三
▲ 《改併五音類聚四聲篇海》，明萬曆己丑本，卷四
▲ Bernard F. Meyer, Theodore F. Wempe: The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary: Third Edition, New York: Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, 1947, P. 371
change the red circle to the correct character
Glyph Design & Normalization
For this character, the left part is the semantic element, which is 中, derived from 冲 or 沖; the right part is the phonetic element.
I can understand Conifer's comment, but this current glyph matches the PRC conventions based on the rationale more. It's acceptable for this normalization and it's better to accept it.
The top element looks like the following.
BTW, KR Norm. 401-5 is similar to 141-3, but it's not suitable for this entry.
UCV #153 shows U+5179 兹, U+7386 玆, U+8332 茲 could be unified when they are used as the components, and there is no K ref. for U+5179 兹, K ref. for U+7386 玆 is K0, K ref. for U+8332 茲 is K1, so it's better to match K0 one.
BTW, the example for 社 above should be added as 𡈽 / 土 pair in future.
Please see the K glyph for U+5F66 彦 K0-6569.
Suggest add one entry under KR Norm. 338 as below.
suggest add the new entry under KR Norm. 426-x for the right component
suggest add a new entry between 山 and 止 under KR Norm. 411-x
Editorial
The similar character should be WS2021-00482:VN-F172B, and please fix the link.
The similar character should be WS2021-00481:VN-F168D, and please fix the link.
Other
For Sichuan, ⿰身大 is མིའང (miang), U+28213 𨈓 is ནང (nang).
For Guizhou, ⿰身大 is tɑi, U+28213 𨈓 is niɑnɡ. (The tone values are unclear.)
Please see https://moji.or.jp/mojikibansearch/info?MJ文字図形名=MJ057066 .
The reading for U+2B9AB 𫦫 is かたな (the above page shows the type of this Japanese reading is 訓読み, but I think it's not right). The top left component is U+30AB カ, the top right component is 万葉仮名 (まんようがな) ta which is used in 古事記 (こじき), 日本書紀 (にほんしょき) and 萬葉集 (まんようしゅう), please also see http://www1.kcn.ne.jp/~uehiro08/contents/kana/ta.htm, and the bottom component is U+30CA ナ.
▲ 侯兴泉，吴南开：《信息处理用粤方言字词规范研究》，广州：广东人民出版社，2017，ISBN 978-7-218-11766-9，P. 273
Data for Unihan
The evidence shows the 反切 of this character is 渠飲反.
Compared with the other version of 《山谷内集詩注》 as below, TE-275B is the variant of U+716E 煮.
▲ 黄庭堅，任淵：《山谷内集詩注》，光緒廣雅書局刻本，卷二
U+9F4A kSemanticVariant U+4E9D<kMatthews U+6589<kMatthews
U+6589 kSemanticVariant U+9F4A<kMatthews