Evidences 1 & 2 support unifying to 𬡢(襖). cf 诚斋集 (卷五十四).
Evidences 3 & 4 support error form of 煥(焕). cf 禅社首坛颂碑.

While I agree on the variants relationship provided by Kushim in comment #150, I think the fact that there are two independent historical use cases for ⿰衤奐 (Evidence 1 and 3) and one modern annotations usage (Evidence 4) already supported a separate codepoint for ⿰衤奐.

If we encoded ⿰衤奐 as U+2C862 + VS17, then it would be very confusing when we digitalize evidence 3 by U+2C862 + VS17, because here ⿰衤奐 was never a variant for U+2C862 or 襖. On the other hand, as the radicals of 煥 is different to the one of ⿰衤奐, it is not better to encode ⿰衤奐 as an IVD for 煥, either.

If UK were to HE U+2C862, it raises the concern of over-unification because U+2C862 is not intended as an error form of 煥, they have different shape and pronunciations.

The component 奐 is very productive while the 𪥌 component is rarely used (only 𪶓 and 𬡢) in encoded characters. Encoding ⿰衤奐 will offer a better unification "anchor" for any future variants if they are discovered.

Agree with Huang Junliang. Unifying to either 𬡢 or 煥 would be unsatisfactory for one or more of the evidence examples, so it is best to encode it.