全字庫 agrees that U+24D18 reads nie4, so completely non-cognate in both G and T.

It is hard to trace this character from the currently available versions of 須摩提女經. The most likely location we think where this phrase originated is:
「爾時阿那邠池。先與女造十二種寶車。先以赤蓮華𮆕内摩尼覆外。黄金重布白銀羅絡。琥珀揚班珊瑚琉璃車𤦲。合雜馬瑙交間水精。鱗暉琉璃采飾。復以紫磨徘徊懸灑疊起。」 (T0128, 宋/元 version)

Anyways, the character is stable in 一切經音義, although with slightly different glyphs.

Whenever in doubt, we basically takes the representative glyph from Taisho unless there seems to be a clear deficit.

The 高麗藏 glyph looks as below:

Recap of my remark in the meeting as per request:

Giving the context, it is presumably a part of word 突抜 (つきぬけ) "thoroughfare; byroad", where this character should correspond to the pronunciation ぬけ. ぬき as provided by submitter might just mean that an officer responded that this character can be identified as a common character 抜.

Panel "regional kanji", Kanken Japan Kanji Museum, photographed by me, ca. 2019

The glyph is actually designed to have 4 horizontal strokes but we might redesign to make it clear if requested.

We will update the wrong representative glyph.

We will update the representative glyph so that two side dots look like 丷.

The note probably comes from another row. Sorry for that.

I remember that the 丬爿 disunification problem has been discussed once during the WS2017 age, where it was rejected with opposition by nearly all people except Chinese experts.

Given that 壮, 状... originated in 不可用作简化偏旁的简化字 in 《简化字总表》, newly assigning NUCV to those particular components seems a more modest way to me if we want them separated, rather than making UCV #363 disunified altogether.