The structure of the glyph in the evidence images looks like ⿹彧虫. If the representative glyph is changed, the IDS should be changed as provided in the previous sentence.

While the first evidence clearly gives ⿸彧虫, the second and third evidences give ⿱彧虫 and they were earlier than the first one. Some other later sources give 𧌒 or 蜮.


▲ 《皇明文徵》（明崇禎刊本）卷1 folio 12b


▲ 《御定歷代賦彙》（清康熙刊本）卷19 folio 13b.

So ⿱彧虫 is likely a variant of 𧌒, normalize ⿸彧虫 to ⿱彧虫 to align with the 𧌒 production. I suggest to keep the current IDS ⿱彧虫 and the current glyph as-is.

Keep current glyph based on Evidences 2 and 3.