Agree with above comments.

Based on discussion concerning WS2021:GKJ-00846, this is identical. One of the 2 should be withdrawn.

No meaning is given, but the evidence shows that the reading of this character is identical to that of 誩, for which the "Guang Yun" gives the fanqie reading 渠敬 (*gjængH), Mandarin "jìng". This suggests that it is related to 𥪰 (U+25AB0), which is also read 渠敬 = Mandarin "jìng" and defined in Kangxi as a variant of U+7AF6, 競 read "jìng". Also, given the graphic relationship between 並 and 竝, this also appears to be the full form to U+2785F, another variant of U+7AF6. Seems like a strong argument for semantic identity U+7AF6 and possible unification with one of the encoded forms.

SAT-07087 is used to illustrate the reading in the definition of another character. The character being defined, appears to be a variant of U+258BC. SAT-07087 appears to have the same relationship to 𧵩 (U+27D69) as U+27D69 has to U+258BC, strongly suggestion that they are variants. Both appear to be ancient forms of 責 (古文責字)

The evidence suggests that this is a variant of U+27A6F, which, according to Kangxi, is in turn a variant of 訴. The reading shown is 素, Mandarin "sù", which is the same as U+27A6F and 訴. The variants given, U+27A9C and 愬 are also similar to 訴 in meaning. The definitions overlap with those of 訴 (吿, 論, 譖, etc.), and the context shown would make sense written as 訴諸鬼神, "appeal to / have recourse to demons and spirits".

Appears to be a variant of U+2BFD3 and U+22FE5.

SAT-08945 and the similar characters U+27D69 and U+27D8C are all variants of what's now written 責.

Similar shape and same reading as U+8CDA.

There is no evidence for the meaning, but the reading "zā" is identical with that of U+9254, suggesting that they might be variants. There is one other pair similar to this already encoded, U+2341D and U+23459. U+2341D is used in Nôm with the meaning "soft" but it's not clear what the semantic relation, if any, is in Chinese. Should we consider UCV for ⿷匚帀 and 木匝?

Possible variant of U+90FE. We should consider extension of UCV to cover 匽, ⿷匚晏, and ⿷匸晏 as components. There are already several possible pairs encoded, such as U+5043 and U+2037E. The proposed characters TB-5C5C and TD-7E57 are other examples

This appears to be a variant of U+9EB5 麵. There are other pairs already encoded, such as U+ 4D2C 䴬 and U+2D6A2 that show ⿺夌 as a simplification of 麥. Might be worth consideration of this component shape as UCV of the simplified form, U+9EA6 麦

We might want to consider unification of 𧆠 and 虖 as components

No reading is given, but shape and context suggests that this is identical to UK-20682 / SN03761 and could be unified

Most of the CJK characters in Unicode are variants of another character as a large number of the characters proposed in WS2021. So, this is not an argument for unification. Neither is there new information added since the previous IRG #57 decision to not unify.

The IDS ⿸鹿⿰𠂎巳 would be clearer and eliminate the need for the variation indicator 〾

Agree with SC=11

女 is the phonetic, but it is such an obvious radical that no one would every look for this under radical 12.

Not opposed to changing IDS, but it's not clear what the benefit is. The current IDS, 漂見, follows the analysis of the dictionary compiler, as he notes "(phiêu kiến)". Historically, 漂 was used first alone, then the component 見 was added to distinguish it.

Agree: TS=14

While I agree that 194 鬼 is more intuitive, current IRG rules require using a radical found in the semantic element. This character means "to divine" and represents a word that is probably an ancient borrowing of 卦 from Chinese, so the radical for 卦 is more appropriate. 194 鬼 can be a secondary radical.

According to the Unihan data, 巴 is 4 strokes and 少 is the radical 42 with 1 residual stroke, so it seems that SC=5 is correct.

Agree with radical 62.

Agree, 1st radical should be 7.0 二, second radical can be 山. SC=10, FS=1

Based on Unihan data, 鳥 is TC=11 and 𢧐 is TC=12, so TC for this character should be 23.

Reconsidering this, it would make more sense with 92 牙 as the primary radical and 152 as secondary.

This character means "near", so 近 is actually semantic and phonetic. The text in the evidence describes this as an E1 structure. This is what Prof. Hồng calls "đẳng lập hội ý" (等立會意). In this case, the character is compounded of 近 for its primary meaning and, by assimilation, the radical of 賒 "xa", which means "far". The assimilation reflects the fact that the 2 characters often appear together in the word "gần xa" (near and far, here and there, etc.). 154 貝 would be appropriate as a second radical, but based on the semantic, the primary radical should remain 162 辵

It's difficult to tell whether the bottom component is 泘 or some other element, such as ⿰扌乎. A clearer image would help.

Need a clearer image.

Is there a clearer image or example in context that would better illustrate this?

While the image is clear, it would be helpful if we could see more of the context. Is there more text in the commentary, or does it just say 音鴙? If that's all, then, given the similar shape and reading, is this in fact a variant of 鴙?

Can we get more information about 清诗话三编? The evidence looks like a modern digital font It's possible that the error noted above was produced during creation of the font.

Please identify the proposed character. It's hard to tell where it appears in the document.

It's hard to make out the 鱼 radical in the image provided. It's probably 鱼 given the fish name, but a clearer image would help.

It's hard to make that image out as 霜

Same comment as above

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

Shape and reading, "sī", suggest this may be a variant of U+9DE5 鷥. But, what is the evidence that justifies this reading? In other cases, such as U+2A028 𪀨 , a variant of 鴉 according to Kangxi, the component 𢆶 represents another phonetic.

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

There are other coded characters where ⿺夌 is a simplification of ⿺麥. It would be good to determine whether this is related to U+2A2FF 𪋿 in any way. Unihan only gives a Cantonese reading of "buk1" for 𪋿, which doesn't quite match the Mandarin "pǔ" shown for TC-447C (we would expect "bǔ"). Still, clearer evidence showing usage would be helpful.

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

The reading and shape suggest this might be a variant or erroneous form of U+975F. Can we get evidence to show that it's not?

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

An identical glyph is found in Vietnamese. It's a variant of 彬, read "băn". See Takeuchi, p. 10

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

If we accept the reading shown, "shēng", and the phonetic element 升, this is not cognate with 鳽 (U+9CFD), but it would be good to see this character in context to determine how the reading was determined.

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

To add to above comments, 𡾆 (U+21F86) is also read "é". I suspect that this is the same character.

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

Evidence from Vietnamese:

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

I wish to echo the point made by Ken Lunde elsewhere regarding this particular evidence:
"The evidence image, which is simply a code chart excerpt, is insufficient. While the link to the CNS 11643 website is better, it also is insufficient. A dictionary entry or book excerpt that explains its meaning or shows the ideograph in context is desirable."

The evidence doesn't match the glyph. Instead, it shows U+2318E a simplified form of U+9F20 鼠

The evidence presented conflicts with the version of GB/T 12052-1989 provided by China (Mr Zhang Zhoucai) for the preparation of the original version of the URO, attached below.
The Chinese version clearly shows 士 as the top component. Moreover, this block of the standard is arranged in Hangul alphabetic order and the character in question, read 산, is situated alpabhetically between 榌, read 비 and 厁 read 산. The reading 산 clearly reflects the Korean reading of the component 士, read 사, not the element 土 shown in UTC-03190. A character composed with 土 would presumably be in another location in the chart. We need to resolve the discrepancy between the 2 documents. My understanding is that this block of GB/T 12052-1989 supports Korean language bibliographic data used in the National Library of China. We should be able to confirm the shape based on that data. Or, perhaps Korea can provide independent evidence supporting that shape. Note that the document N4008 provided by Korea in support of this character merely cites the problematic version of GB/T 12052-1989 and does not supply independent evidence. It is possible that there is a ⿱土𰆊 used in Korean, but the current evidence alone is not acceptable.

Citing http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4008.pdf is circular reasoning by referring to a possibly bad decision based on the same faulty evidence and cannot be accepted. We still need independent confirmation of the existence and form of this character.

The evidence presented conflicts with the version of GB/T 12052-1989 provided by China (Mr Zhang Zhoucai) for the preparation of the original version of the URO (attached below).
This version clearly reflects the shape of the current U+5381厁, not the proposed ⿱斜㔾.
My understanding is that this block of GB/T 12052-1989 supports Korean language bibliographic data used in the National Library of China. We should be able to confirm the shape based on that data. Or, perhaps Korea can provide independent evidence supporting that shape. It is possible that there is a ⿱斜㔾 used in Korean, but the current evidence alone is not acceptable.

Citing http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4008.pdf is circular reasoning by referring to a possibly bad decision based on the same faulty evidence and cannot be accepted. We still need independent confirmation of the existence and form of this character.

The evidence presented conflicts with the version of GB/T 12052-1989 provided by China (Mr Zhang Zhoucai) for the preparation of the original version of the URO, attached below. This version clearly shows ⿵門西. Moreover, this block of the standard is arranged in Hangul alphabetic order and the character in question, read 서, is situated between 虄 read 산 and 縇 read 선. The reading 서 clearly reflects the Korean reading of 西. We need to resolve the discrepancy between the 2 documents. My understanding is that this block of GB/T 12052-1989 is supports Korean language bibliographic data used in the National Library of China. We should be able to confirm the shape based on that data. Or, perhaps Korea can provide independent evidence supporting that shape. The current evidence alone is not acceptable.

Citing http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/sc2/wg2/docs/n4008.pdf is circular reasoning by referring to a possibly bad decision based on the same faulty evidence and cannot be accepted. We still need independent confirmation of the existence and form of this character.

The evidence presented conflicts with the version of GB/T 12052-1989 provided by China (Mr Zhang Zhoucai) for the preparation of the original version of the URO (attached below).
This version clearly reflects the shape of the current 噕 U+5655, not the proposed 爲𰆊.
My understanding is that this block of GB/T 12052-1989 supports Korean language bibliographic data used in the National Library of China. We should be able to confirm the shape based on that data. Or, perhaps Korea can provide independent evidence supporting that shape. Note that the document N4008 provided by Korea in support of this character merely cites the problematic version of GB/T 12052-1989 and does not supply independent evidence. It is possible that there is a 爲𰆊 used in Korean, but the current evidence alone is not acceptable.

Here is the conflicting version of GB/T 12052-1989 mentioned above.

from TĐCNDG

From Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Giải:

We've normalized this based on the analysis shown in the evidence, which is "(trùng lễ)", i.e. 虫礼. We have found no cases where U+2E564 is used as a phonetic in the composition of Nôm characters. Neither can we find evidence where U+2E564 is used in Hán-Việt texts.

The evidence above is for another character. Here is the correct evidence

From update to "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Giải":

Updated evidence:

The Vietnamese usage is onomatopoeic and means "to raise a tumultuous noise". UK-20407 seems to similarly describe sound, so unification might be justified, though they are not strictly cognate.

The glyph shown above is wrong and has been updated in a later edition of "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Gỉai", p 1116

The comment above doesn't make sense. The two images are both composed of 居 over 於 and obviously identical.

Here is a clearer image:


Additional evidence that favors &S2-01, not 彳, is that it is a very common simplification of the radical 金, and this character is a simplification of 錢. Examples from WS2017 are VN-F1DB9, VN-F1DBB, VN-F1DC0, etc.

The element 廾 was normalized based on IRGN2370

呂 is favored over 吕, though both are found in manuscripts. The latest version of TĐCNDG now has the 呂 form:

We can change the design.

We will consider modifying the glyph.

The difference in the last stroke of 於 is not considered significant, esp. for encoding. The Nom Na Tong font contains examples of 於 with the last stroke at both angles, e.g U+7600 and U+6DE4. We might look into normalizing to one or the other form, but it has not been a priority.

The component in question and that below it are variants of VN-F0179, which is a simplification of 鬧, with no relation to 芇. We have normalized most of the glyphs using this component to take the shape provided in our font.

The character in this poem is read "lâu", which means "a long time". It is a simplification of VN-F0011 in WS2017 which is composed of the phonetic element 婁 (read "lâu") and the semantic element 久. Given that, the intent of the calligrapher is clearly to convey the meaning 乆 ("cửu" a long time) or it's more common variant 久. We can consider modifying the glyph to ⿰类乆, but do not want to create yet another variant of 久.

The evidence says that this is an erroneous form of 躭. U+2EB2E 𮬮 is another encoded character composed of bird and 冘. They are possibly related.

Possibly related to GKJ-00710 ⿸鹿囯

The evidence suggests that this is the lesser seal (小篆) form of the character that evolved into 蛇. Are we encoding lesser seal forms?

It would be helpful to have more information about this character. What is the reading and how is it used? Is the semantic "water" or "grass". There is a similar Hán-Việt character read "câu" that means a kind of plant used in Chinese medicine cited in "Ngũ Thiên Tự"

Is the reading given, "luán", correct? The new evidence says "音塔“, the fanqie for which is variously 吐盍切, 託合切, 達合, etc. . The glyph shape seems to be a simplification of 鑉 (託盍切), for which the phonetic is 盍 and whose coda the same as 塔.

Note, there is a similar encoded pair: U+93EC ⿰金虖 and U+𨩞 (28A5E) ⿰金⿸虍㐄.

Variant of 黨?

The reading given is "luò", which is identical to that of 駱 (U+99F1). This suggests that they are variants and that the component 名 should be 各, in which case they we might consider unification. It would be good to clarify the meaning and the reading.

Similar to U+28125

The new evidence shows that ⿰金苦 is a valid character with the reading "kǔ". However, the original evidence attributes supplied reading "nuò", which is almost certainly a misidentification for U+9369. We should avoid adding "nuò" in the Unihan data.

Possibly related to GKJ-00358 ⿰崖鳥

Is this a variant of the character ⿻丅口 (no mouth radical) shown in the evidence for UK-20685? Perhaps a mantra/dharani final syllable like "hūṃ"?

The evidence from Yuseo Pilji (儒胥必知) gives the reading ᄒᆞᄂ (hʌn), which in Modern Korean I believe becomes "han" in the first syllable of a word. This and the variant forms in the same context suggests to me that UTC-03193 is in fact a variant of U+5655 爳, also read "han"

Since the different forms seem to come from the same text, the evidence so far suggests that UTC-03193 is a variant of U+7233

The place name is read "Hishirimo", and the reading of this character, "hishiri", does not suggest any obvious semantic relationship with the standard reading of 䦧 or 䦧, which is "seme(gu)" meaning "blame, curse, attack" etc. 䦧 or 䦧 are probably not interchangeable with UTC-03233, hence not unifiable.

Given the limit of 1,000 candidates per working set, the adjacent character, VN-F0259, must wait until the next working set.

That's an interesting question regarding "vại" (jar). The reading comes from Prof. Hồng's "Tự Điển Chữ Nôm Dẫn Giải" (http://www.nomfoundation.org/nom-tools/Tu-Dien-Chu-Nom-Dan_Giai/Tu-Dien-Chu-Nom-Dan_Giai). I'm not familiar with the Jing dialect of Vietnamese spoken in China, but the IPA reading given corresponds to "standard" Vietnamese "đậy" (cover, put a lid on). As the evidence shows, "đậy" also means "cover" in Jing, but in Vietnamese Nôm it is more commonly written 𢂌, 帒, 待, etc. "Đậy" is also a valid reading for VN-F0B1F in standard Vietnamese as shown in the entry below from "Đại Tự Điển Chữ Nôm". I suspect that Prof. Hống's interpretation as "vại" is based on the context, a list of earthenware vessels, and the Hán-Việt reading of the final of 代 "đại"

Evidence says that this is an erroneous form of U+95B9 閹 and U+9609 阉

Simplification by analogy of U+95D8 闘. Hence, also variant of U+9B2A 鬪 and U+9B2D 鬭

The character shown in picture 4 is already encoded as U+2A159 ⿰敕鳥. If we encode GKJ-00317, it appears to be a variant of U+2A159

Based on Eiso's comments, this (GKJ-00716) and GKJ-00678 both appear to be variants of U+9E91 麑

Is this a variant of U+28233 𨈳

Apparent variant of 𠂤. The evidence shows SAT-06027 in citation from the Shuowen used to explain the structure of 師. Other versions of the Shuowen have 从帀从𠂤, with 𠂤 in place of SAT-06027.

In addition to the glyph shapes, the evidence suggest that this has similar readings to those of 鬾 (U+9B3E): 其 and 渠羈 eq. 渠寄. Also similar meanings of "small demon". They are no doubt variants.

Appears to be a variant of 闙 U+95D9. The evidence says that the character in question is an alternate form of 啓. Kangxi, citing the Guangyun notes 闙 is interchangeable with 啓 (通作啓)

The evidence suggests that this is an ancient form of variants of U+5F99 徙. The similar character, U+285A4, is also a variant of 徙

Evidence states that this is a variant of U+95E0 闠

Shape and reading suggest variant of U+5AED 嫭.

Readings and shape suggest variant of U+9670 陰 and U+9682 隂.

The evidence suggests that this is a variant of 闕. For example the first image appears to cite the text 闕里志, using TE-323B in place of 闕. The second uses TE-323B in a compound which appears equivalent to the more commonly written 城闕

The evidence suggests that this is a variant of 鸝 and its simplified form, 鹂

Same reading as U+9E0E 鸎 of which it appears to be a variant.

Is this a variant of 鏬?

The character in Tao Yang's evidence is too unclear to determine the actual shape, but if it is TE-797D, then this is clearly a variant of U+9C10 鰐 and U+9C77 鱷, which are also found in copies of the text cited, Han Yu's "Address to the Crocodiles".

Evidence notes that this is probably an alternate form (別體字) of U+97AE 鞮. In agreement with the comments in the evidence, this Xiongnu name is also transcribed with 鞮 <https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/復株絫若鞮單于>

U+9A62 驢.The context seems to be a variant of the saying that is more commonly written with U+9A62: 轂千/干駑，不如養一驢 <https://www.newton.com.tw/wiki/轂千駑，不如養一驢>

Agree with Wang Yifan. They both are read "rìu" and mean "axe".

𪎏 (U+2A38F)

U+2CB9A

𩾗 (U+29F97)

U+2B48C

𨮜

鴄 (U+9D04)

饍 (U+994D)

䴊 (U+4D0A)

鑅

U+2CC94 𬲔

U+993D 餽

U+4B64 䭤

U+2A40D 𪐍

U+2A372 𪍲

U+2969F 𩚟

U+28CF1