According to evidence 3, ⿺辶處 is a variant of 遽 (U+907D). Could China explain why ⿺辶處 is a variant of 蘧 (U+8627) instead?

针对 #10640 HUANG Junliang 的评论，经查阅内部资料，这可能源于古籍中常见的异文现象，如“蘧蘧”有异文作“遽遽”、“匆遽”有异文作“匆蘧”。我们的编辑在处理相关异体字时，可能因此将“蘧”字收入备考。需要说明的是，这并不构成“⿺辶處”为“蘧”异体字的直接证据。附上部分异文资料截图，供参考。而与“⿺辶處”构成直接语义关系的应该是“遽”，详见 Evidence 5。
感谢您的指正。
In response to comment #10640 from HUANG Junliang, our internal review suggests that this may stem from common textual variants found in ancient texts, such as “蘧蘧” appearing as “遽遽” in some versions, and “匆遽” appearing as “匆蘧”. Our editors may have included “蘧” in their records of potential variants during compilation for this reason. It should be noted, however, that this does not constitute direct evidence that “⿺辶處” is a variant of “蘧”. Screenshots of some relevant textual variants are attached for your reference. The character that has a direct semantic relationship with “⿺辶處” should be “遽”, as detailed in Evidence 5.
Thank you for your correction.