The current radical is not intuitive for this particular ideograph, so either change it to 113.0 (示), SC=6, FS=5, or add 113.0 (示) as a secondary radical.
Additional evidence can be found in UTC document L2/21-101 in which this is the second ideograph presented: https://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetDocumentLink?L2/21-101
This ideograph is also in UAX #45 with UTC-03240 as its source reference.
The same evidence, Evidence 2, can be found in UTC document L2/21-101 in which this is the first ideograph presented: https://www.unicode.org/cgi-bin/GetDocumentLink?L2/21-101
This ideograph is also in UAX #45 with UTC-03239 as its source reference.
The issue here is about regional conventions, which can influence whether to normalize or not. Such inconsistencies are pervasive and systemic in T-source ideographs in recent Extension blocks, starting from Extension E. UCS is a character encoding standard, not a glyph encoding standard.
To follow up on Comment #5880, TCA is doing a massive disservice to UCS and to the entire standardization community by not normalizing their representative glyphs to follow regional conventions, which is something that seemed to have started from Extension E with Radical #162. What TCA submits for UCS, in terms of representative glyphs, can be different from a specific font implementation that is used by Taiwan's personal name database. By not doing so, it gives the impression that TCA is submitting glyphs, not characters, to the IRG.
IRG Working Set 2021v6.0
Source: Ken LUNDE
Date: Generated on 2024-10-10
Attributes
U+223F8 𢏸
IDS1: ⿰弓⿱亠糸
IDS2: ⿰弓⿱亠糸 (GT)
IDS3: ⿰弓⿱亠.糸.
U+2C0CE 𬃎
IDS1: ⿰木⿱玄小
IDS2: ⿰木⿱亠糸 (T)
IDS3: ⿰木d⿱亠.糸.
Evidence
This ideograph is also in UAX #45 with UTC-03240 as its source reference.
This ideograph is also in UAX #45 with UTC-03239 as its source reference.
Glyph Design & Normalization
Editorial