The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
The supplementary evidence provided by Eiso Chan shows the character to be a variant of 庵. It seems like 𤲅 is a common variant of 奄, and a possible candidate for a UCV.
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
I'm not sure what IRG rules you are referring to. However, IRG PnP §2.2.1 d. (5) c) states:
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.
Isn't there some question about the suitability of 汉字海 as a reliable source? I think it can be used as secondary evidence, but I would prefer to see additional evidence for ⿰木弯 as a place name.
The evidence is insufficient. Firstly, please show the full page of the evidence. Secondly please show the original source that is being quoted so we can be sure that character shown in the modern source is not a mistake.
It is difficult to trust the modern edition of the text as experience shows that modern editions often introduce glyph errors or create imaginary characters. Therefore, please show an image of the original text, apparently from 《明憲宗純皇帝實錄卷之六十八》.
The full reference for the source should be provided (author, title, publisher, year), as well as the name of the author and title for the piece in which this character occurs.
Complete reference for the source (author, title, publisher, year) would be useful. It would also be interesting to see the complete page, and not just a tiny extract.
The current evidence is insufficient. Please provide an image from an edition of 禮記 which shows this character. Otherwise it should be postponed pending additional evidence.
Based on the additonal evidence produced by Huang Junliang, it would seem that the submitted character is an error for 斸. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
The glyph in the original evidence is unclear, and the evidence produced by Conifer Tseng indicates that the character should be 敘. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error for 敘.
I agree completely with Ken Lunde's comments on TCA-submitted ideographs with insufficient evidence (there is an implicit "agree" comment from me on all of Ken Lunde's repeats of this comment for other TCA characters).
Google search finds mostly "冬積柴水中為霖以取之", and Wikisource has "冬積柴水中為罧以取之", so it seems likely that ⿰氵⿱㓁林 is a corrupt form in this edition. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that ⿰氵⿱㓁林 is correct or is a stable error.
《武強縣新志》 appears to have 漁, although I cannot confirm this.
Evidence
Based on #7499, ⿰氵𠅤 is probably an error for U+6F01 漁, therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not an error form in this one source.
This is a list of Song dynasty officials in a Qing dynasty book. There is a high probability that the character ⿱直木 is a mistake. 《景定建康志》卷二十四 gives the name as 趙汝末. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence for the correct form of this person's name.
It is not clear to me what ⿰末攵 should mean here, and it seems quite possible that it is a one-off error for some other character (maybe 救). It would seem prudent to postpone pending additional evidence to confirm that this is not an error character.
The evidence seems insufficient. The character is quite possibly a mistake for some other encoded character, and the single occurence of this name in a note is not sufficient to determine whether this is a genuine character or an error character. Suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Other versions of this text give "急蘭亦䚟" (e.g. 《元史》卷二百一十), so ⿰月㝵 is likely an error for 䚟. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence that this is not a one-off error in this edition.
Evidently a variant or mistake for 𢕬 (U+2256C). As《天聞閣琴譜》 does not seem to be a very reliable source, I suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Other editions have "其妙聲，則清靜厭瘱", so the character here (which is not very clear anyway) should be an error/corruption for 瘱. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Based on the comment by Eiso Chan UK-20427 seems to be a one-off error for U+4BCB 䯋, and therefore not appropriate for encoding. Therefore we WITHDRAW this character.
I agree that ⿰豊豊 corresponds to 艷體 in the form of the poem quoted in #7485. However, here we have "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" which preserves the five-character poetic metre, so ⿰豊豊 cannot be an accidental mistranscription (I think it is impossible to accidentally mistranscribe 艷體 as ⿰豊豊). It is possible that "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" is the original form of the poem, and "艷體餐瑤華" is a revised version which expands the unusual character ⿰豊豊. But even if "艷體餐瑤華" is the original version, I believe that "{⿰豊豊}飡瓊瑤華" must have been a deliberate revision. Therefore, I think the evidence for ⿰豊豊 is satisfactory, and the character should be kept in the M-set.
The correct name of this Song dynasty person is 林瞪 (1003-1059), therefore ⿰日登 is certainly an error for 瞪. If this is a one-off error in this source then the character should not be encoded. Therefore suggest to postpone pending additional evidence.
Confirmation that the correct form of the character is ⿰口⿱刀臼 (unifiable with U+5557 啗).
Source: Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe, "The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary" (3rd ed., Hong Kong, 1947) p. 626 (taâm)
The 2.0 glyph is not an improvement. The top of the vertical stroke of 巾 does not conform to PRC conventions, and the left shoulder of 巾 should not protrude. Cf. the G-source glyph for U+4F48:
The 2.0 glyph is not an improvement, as it does not match the evidence or conform to PRC conventions for 礻 (should not show the final stroke protruding on the left). Therefore suggest reverting to the 1.0 glyph.
The UTC glyph uses the G form of 跋. The H form of 跋 is as shown in the evidence. Therefore suggest changing the glyph to match the evidence (i.e. use expected H glyph form).
The form of 灵 used for almost all V-source characters is the same as the G-form (i.e. no protruding horizontal stroke). Only U+306FB (Ext. G) and U+31ADF (Ext. H) use the same form of 灵 as shown for this character (VN-F1A08). It would be nice if Vietnam could use a consistent form of 灵 for all characters.
The following character (⿰氵𥬡) is WS2021-02079 UK-20208. The fact that both characters in his retirement sobriquet are unencoded suggests that he deliberately created two novel characters.
The preceding character (⿱興同) is WS2021-00745 UK-20207. The fact that both characters in his retirement sobriquet are unencoded suggests that he deliberately created two novel characters.
See this SCMP article for additional background discussion of the "X也" gender-neutral 3rd-person pronoun. Refusing to encode this character would be doing a great disservice to the user community who want to use this gender-neutral pronoun form.
Comment
Additional discussion on twitter showing a glyph form similar to that proposed by the UK with 㐅 rather than X:
U+311A7 𱆧
Evidence provided for G_Z3862201 indicates that U+311A7 is a Zhuang word meaning 'pond loach' (泥鰍). UK-20804 also means 'pond loach', but in the Minnan language, which is a strange coincidence as Zhuang and Minnan are unrelated languages.
IRG Working Set 2021v3.0
Source: Andrew WEST
Date: Generated on 2022-07-04
Unification
Appears to be an error for U+25855 𥡕 in a single edition. Suggest postponing for additional evidence.
The glyph shown in the evidence is suspicious because no other encoded character has the component ⿱宷日. It is possibly an error for U+2AB3A 𪬺 (K5-01E2). Consider unifying to 𪬺 (U+2AB3A) if cognate.
As 𡆮 (⿴囗士) is only listed in the "備考" section of KXZD, the KX glyph form cannot be considered to be authoritative, and KX should not be used as a source reference. The definitions "土入口也" and "沙土入口" clearly indicate that ⿴囗土 is the correct glyph form for this character. Given that GHZR (which supercedes the GHZ-10711.06 source reference) has corrected the glyph to ⿴囗土, the preferred solution is to correct the G glyph for U+211AE to ⿴囗土 and amend the source reference to GHZR-10766.06. If this solution is accepted then UK will agree to unification and withdraw UK-20835. Horizontal extension is only required if China is unwilling to change the glyph for U+211AE.
Agree to unify to 𬝋 (U+2C74B).
Attributes
"If the technically correct (aka semantic) radical for an ideograph hampers its discoverability, or is region-dependent, the primary radical shall be assigned as though made by an ideograph expert who is neither a specialist in the history of the Han script nor familiar with ideograph etymology. The technically correct radical can be assigned as a second radical. Both are shown in the code charts, though the primary one serves as the basis for ordering within a CJK Unified Ideographs block."
Therefore, in this case the primary radical should be R126 而.
Evidence
Therefore ⿰氵追 is a variant of or error for U+6425 搥.
Source: Bernard F. Meyer and Theodore F. Wempe, "The Student's Cantonese-English Dictionary" (3rd ed., Hong Kong, 1947) p. 626 (taâm)
Glyph Design & Normalization
Other
Data for Unihan
Evidence provided for G_Z3862201 indicates that U+311A7 is a Zhuang word meaning 'pond loach' (泥鰍). UK-20804 also means 'pond loach', but in the Minnan language, which is a strange coincidence as Zhuang and Minnan are unrelated languages.