The glyph doesn't match the evidences, need to be comfirmed by more cases in actual usage.
According to Andrew‘s comment, the length unit '釐' has a complex character shape, and in practical applications, there is a simplified process: “釐-厘-𭀖”. So it's clear that UK-30933 should be the simplification of 喱, and 㕱 must be the wrong glyph of it.

But in the meanwhile, the glyph of 𭀖 and UK-30933 should be reconsidered.
There are 2 kinds of shape for 𭀖: ⿷兀丶 and ⿸㇇⿺乚丶.
金憲曾 五千字中英字典@eisoch
https://en.glyphwiki.org/wiki/u91d0-itaiji-001
And both of these glyphs should be the transliterations of the cursive script of '釐-厘', so the correct shape should be “⿸厂⿺乚丶”.


So the correct glyph for UK-30933 should be normalized to “⿰口⿸厂⿺乚丶”

I believe that the glyph matches the evidence, and that 4 pieces of evidence is already quite good. The normalized ⿷兀丶 shape was certainly chosen to match the existing G- and UTC-source forms of U+2D016 𭀖, which is clearly recorded in Unihan data as a variant of 厘.

With that being said, I would also support a separate evaluation of the glyph for 𭀖. I would like to note that the variation of ⿷兀丶 ~ ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 is also recorded for Zhuang (古壮字字典 p. 355 - ndei [dei1] “好” ~ 壮语简志 p. 97 [di1] “好”, respectively).

Ignoring the exact position and orientation of the dot (丶) all 3 distinct glyphs, ⿷兀丶, ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 and ⿸厂⿺乚丶 of the right hand component
𭀖 occur in published literature, however ⿷兀丶 is by far the most common form used and found in at least 3 dictionaries, two of which where the sources of the character.

As stated in the submission note the evidences show the cursive form ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 which is generally only seen in hand written documents. A non-handwritten exception showing ⿸㇇⿺乚丶, and perhaps the only non-handwritten case showing ⿸㇇⿺乚丶is 壮语简志 p. 97



and the accompanying footnote says that the exact form of the glyph can vary from place to place.

There is potential for a level 2 ucv of ⿷兀丶, ⿸㇇⿺乚丶 and ⿸厂⿺乚丶.