Given the unusual glyph form, the current evidence is insufficient for encoding. Need additional evidence to determine whether the character is a unifiable variant of an existing character or whether it should be separately encoded.

The shape of the submitted character is almost exactly like 𢬧(U+22B27), so it's recommended to unify it with 𢬧 (U+22B27).

It may be difficult to prove that these two ideographs are cognate.

In the original proposal L2/23-130, the submitter Tsukada Masaki also noted that it is probably a variant of 拝 and might be unified with 𢬧:



It would be great if there are multiple land registration record evidences. One evidence seems not enough to back this character with unusual shape.

The person who submitted this ideograph to the UTC provided this evidence image, which is from the Meiji era. It shows that it is a variant of U+62DC, which in turn is a variant of U+62DD.

Unify to 拜 (U+62DC).

With regard to Comment #8625, the shapes are too different, and therefore there is no UCV.

UTC-03359 may be a misidentification of the cursive form of U+62DC 拜 shown in #5557. Yes, the the shapes are too different for unification, but the shapes are only too different because someone misidentified the cursive form of 拜 and invented a new character. Therefore suggest to postpone for additional evidence.

Provided by Chiang Chi-Ying (江祈瑩):

玉井米南 (1912). 漢字摘要. 大由堂書店. p. 154.



芳賀剛太郎 (1907). 新案漢字典：誤似明弁. 郁文舎. p. 284.