I think that IRG experts had agreed that captions couldn't be the only source of the evidences for submitted ideographs in IRG meeting #62. So unless other evidences can be provided, the ideograph should be postponed.
The decision about using captions as evidences was clearly stated in the meeting so this kind of situation should not have happened.

We think that this ideograph should be postponed if no more qualified evidence can be provided. For more comments, please go to:
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/ws2024/app/?find=UK-30621

The latest IRG PnP (version 17) explicitly allows for multimedia evidences and submissions to this working set include among other things internet evidences from Instagram, Twitter and Bilibili. It is inconsistent to object to evidences from Bilibili just because they are from Bilibili, but not to object to evidences from Instagram just because they are from Instagram, nor object to to evidences from Twitter just because they are from Twitter.

Evidence links:

evidence 1: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV16o4y1m7E7

evidence 2: https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1AL411A7W5

【壮剧】朗读+演唱+字幕 [【Zhuang Opera】Read + Sung + Subtitles] uploaded 2024-11-17 to https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1NSk8YgEDr/

The UK still has not been able to provide evidence from historical document or other high-quality sources for this character. On the contrary, the UK has been providing evidence of the use of this character by one or two users on unstable carriers, and such evidence is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. We have made it very clear that the evidence of this type provided by the UK is not sufficient to support the encoding of this character. However, the experts from the UK seem unable to understand what we mean and they are still insisting on providing evidence of the same type with insufficient quality, and also insisting on saying things that are obviously inconsistent with the facts. This kind of behavior is of no benefit to the review work and cannot make these characters be removed to the M-set.
At the last meeting, we have already suggested that if the experts from the UK believe that this character is not a newly self-created character and has the value for encoding, they can simply publish a paper that includes this character and vouch for these characters with their own reputation. Let me be more straightforward. It should not be a difficult task for the experts from the UK to publish a paper. If the experts from the UK are not willing to risk their own reputation, they should not insist on using evidence that obviously does not meet the requirements to request the encoding of this character in the IRG.

英国（UK）至今仍未能提供这个字的历史文献证据或其他高质量来源，相反，英国一直在提供由一两个使用者在不稳定的载体上使用该字的证据，这些证据并不足以支持对该字进行编码。我们已经说得很清楚，英国提供的这种类型的证据不足以支持编码该字，但英国的专家似乎无法理解我们表达的意思，仍在坚持提供相同类型、效力不足的证据，坚持说一些明显与事实不符的话。这种行为对审核工作没有任何益处，也无法让这些字从 D-set 返回 M-set。
在上次会议上，我们已经建议：如果英国专家认为这个字并非个人新造，且有编码的价值，完全可以自己发表一篇包含此字的论文，以自己的声誉给这些字作担保。让我把话说的再直接一点：发表一篇论文对英国专家来说应该不是什么难事，如果英国专家不愿意拿自己的声誉冒险，就不应该坚持在 IRG 以明显不符合要求的证据来要求对该字进行编码。

China thinks the evidence is still not sufficient and the character should be kept in D-set until better evidednce is provided.