The original evidence is missing one horizontal stroke in the 春 component. And the annotation gives ⿱夫月.

I don't object the current glyph design & IDS. Like you said both ⿱夫日 and ⿱夫月 are variants of 春. My previous comment is to note the normalization involved here. I think the normalized form ⿰口⿱椿火 is preferred over the exact form ⿰口⿱⿰木⿱夫日火, one can always add an IVD of ⿰口⿱椿火 to present the desired ⿰口⿱⿰木⿱夫日火 shape in 正統道藏.

Aside: In this evidence, the last character in the same column of ⿰口⿱椿火, ⿰口⿱𰟐水 is written as ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一:



The normalization may be inevitable when dealing with ancient text, because they might have different normalization rules: The text here is authored well before the 15th century. As we can see, the shape of 堇 component here is consistent with contemporary dictionary:


▲ 龍龕手鑑（臺北故宮藏宋刊本）卷1 folio 5a

I think we should encode the modern normalized form ⿰口⿱𰟐水 instead of the exact shape ⿰口⿱⿰火㇯堇一, because the standard is for modern audience.