This is already the U-source form of U+6ECB 滋, so UTC should submit a disunification proposal if they believe that ⿰氵玆 was incorrectly unified to 滋 (U+6ECB) (personally, I think the unification is correct).

|玆| and |兹| are similar.

Shuowen: “[玆] 黑也. 从二玄. 春秋傳曰: 何故使吾水玆?”
Shuowen: “[茲] 艸木多益. 从艸, 絲省聲.”

Guangyun: “[玆] (胡涓切, 匣先合四平) 說文曰: 黒也. 春秋傳曰: 何故使君 [吾] 水玆. 本亦音滋. 按: 本經只作滋.”
Guangyun: “[兹] (子之切, 精之開三平) 此也. 又姓. 左傳: 魯大夫兹無還.”

[茲] = ⿱ [艹(艸)] [𢆶(絲)], with phonetic symbol 絲 *TSƏ.
[玆] = ⿰ [玄] [玄], with phonetic symbol 玄 *WIN.
|⿰氵玆| in the evidence is [玆] with extra [氵], thus is not unified to [滋] = ⿰ [氵] [茲].

My main point is that this character should not have been submitted for encoding, but a disunification proposal for U+6ECB should have been submitted instead.

This ideograph is a disunification of U+6ECB 滋 that also affects U+FA99 滋. If accepted, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FA99, KP1-52B4, should be moved to the new code point, the kIRG_KPSource property value of U+FA99 should be changed to KPU-0FA99, and the kIRG_USource property value of U+6ECB, UTC-00777, should be removed.

Note that disunifications have been processed via previous IRG working sets, which is why the UTC decided to submit this ideograph. UTC-01159, UTC-01162, and UTC-02972 in IRG Working Set 2017 served as precedents.

玆 and 茲 have often been used interchangeably in later periods. The following four pieces of evidence are provided for reference. Based on this, it is suggested to keep the unification with 滋 and ⿰氵玆.

(1)李守奎，〈古音研究中應當注意的幾個文字問題〉，《饒宗頤國學院院刊》第六期，2019年8月，p.178-181.


(2) 《漢語大字典》亠部「玆」, P316-317.


(3)《玉篇》(嘉慶19年重修本)卷之一 平聲．七之．津之切，”[⿰氵玆]……說文益也。…..”


(4) MOE Variant Dict. A02274-008 :

kFanqie 胡涓

Per the details in document IRG N2785, the UTC formally withdraws the withdraw of this ideograph, and requests that it be added back to the M Set.