The note mentions contrastive / non-cognate usage in evidence 1 (an index for a Foochow dictionary), where 𲑜 is â̤ and ⿰亻𩋘 is nò̤, but I must wonder if it is an error in compiling the index, where ⿰亻𩋘 was to be combined with 𲑜 but was misrecognized as 儺. (I have suspected similar errors in an index for a Teochew dictionary.)

𩋘 is a variant of 鞋, 𲑜 is already only known from Foochow usage, and evidence 2 shows ⿰亻𩋘 being used as a variant of 𲑜.