Although I have no position about the glyph design, I support HKSAR's comment. If the glyph design looking like "⿰言墮" is not used differently, IDS "⿰言墮" would be more helpful.

It slightly hard to identify the right component. Does this reference include any other character including a "介" component?

The glyph in the evidence 1 looks like 𧸅(U+27E05)?

The glyphs in 3 evidences are slightly different, although they can be unified. Is there any rationale to choose the glyph in the evidence 1? If the glyph is taken from 慧琳一切經音義, the glyph in 高麗藏本 was same with the proposed glyph?

The evidence 1 and 2 have slightly different glyphs (王 vs 𡈼). The proposed glyph using 𡈼 is preferred? In current UCS codechart, most TCA glyphs including "呈" are using 𡈼.

Is it possible to identify the meaning or pronunciation of this character? Although its strokes are looking like Hanzi, there might be a possibility that the proposed character was a symbol. The annotation at the right side is slightly unclear.

Is it possible to identify the meaning or pronunciation of this character? Although its strokes are looking like Hanzi, there might be a possibility that the proposed character was a symbol. The annotation at the right side is slightly unclear.

I feel same thing with Kushim's first comment, but I hope if China keeps current proposed glyph. The typographic shape in the evidence 1 & 2 are proposed by UTC as #03614. Unify them at same codepoint would be helpful to show this character has an ambiguity.

The lower-right stroke of "本" is different from the evidence, and most G-column glyphs in the code chart.

Proposed glyph matches with the Evidence 1, but the digital font in the Evidence 2 looks much different. Is there any discussion which glyph is better? I guess UK is not going to encode them separately.

The shape of 爫 is different in the evidences 1,2 versus the evidence 3, which is preferred by UK?

In #3613, there is a discussion about the glyph shape of this character. I hope UTC keeps the glyph shape, to show a glyphic difference with #3613.

The middle component in the evidence is "公" but the proposed glyph uses "厷".

The lower horizontal stroke of the proposed glyph might have strange kink at the middle, I'm afraid that printing it at the small font size might cause misunderstanding of the glyph.

Although it's clearly unifiable, there is a dot whose direction differs from the evidence.

No objection to the unification, we should note following cases too: