Although cognate, it should be noted that Evidence 5 clearly shows ⿰亻翌 instead of ⿰亻𰙩. Evidence 4 also appears as ⿰亻⿱⿰𫜹𫜹止 (= ⿰亻⿱羽止).

Evidence 4 and 5 do not show misidentified glyphs, as we already noted in the submission that these two pieces of evidence show error forms of the submitted character ("Note: Evidence 4 gives ⿰亻⿱羽止; evidence 5 gives ⿰亻翌, both are errors of ⿰亻𰙩 as 㒊 in 㒊譶.").

Pre-modern woodblock editions often show a wide range of glyph forms, and where appropriate we provide evidence showing error forms, as we believe this is useful for textual scholarship.