The provided evidence is all from modern reprints. Are there images of original books that can show the glyph is not misprinted?

We think the current evidences are enough for encoding. But we also welcome other experts to add additional evidence for them.

Normalize to ⿰麥員 to follow PRC conventions.

Regarding Comment #8643, PnP 2.2.5b (5) states: "Characters found in quotations from classical or pre-20th-century texts in a modern typeset edition should also provide an image of an original edition of the text in order to be sure that the character form given in the modern edition is not an error form".

I do not think that other experts should be doing the submitter's homework for them, but I did randomly check one 1714 edition of 《隋書》卷25 for the quotation shown in Evidence 3, and it actually shows U+2A32D 𪌭. It might be that 𪌭 in this edition is an error for ⿺麥員, or it might be that ⿺麥員 is an error for 𪌭, but I think it should be the submitter's responsibility to determine this. And it should be the submitter's responsibility to provide evidence from the original woodblock editions to support the encoding.

It is not rare in old books, I'd like to provide two pieces of evidence here:
弇州四部稿，卷一百七十，说部，宛委余编十五，日本早稻田大学图书馆藏，page24

北山酒经，文渊阁四库全书本，page3

Agree to revise the glyph.

Evidence 4，original edition of Evidence 2
元和郡縣圖志，金陵書局，清光緒8年[1882]刻本，
http://read.nlc.cn/allSearch/searchDetail?searchType=12&showType=1&indexName=data_403&fid=312001056832


Evidence 5
徐应秋《玉芝堂谈荟》，《明代筆記日記繪畫史料彙編》，上海書畫出版社，2019年02月，第1版，第542頁。


Evidence 6，original edition of Evidence 5
徐應秋，玉芝堂談薈 卷二十八，文淵閣四庫全書本


Evidence 7
［清］易鏡清 輯，［清］易本烺 補，《字孳補二卷》，清同治九年（1870）京山易氏家刻本
https://etymology.ancientbooks.cn/newViewDetail2.jspx?contentId=3563580&highlight=%F0%AA%8C%AD