Possible unification to 𮉆 (U+2E246). Despite the representative glyph, the KR glyph looks like below in their database.
https://db.history.go.kr/unicode/getCodeDetailHtml.do?code=73537


We could not find the original material, so I'm not sure if this is caused by normalization, but there is possibility that the original shape is unifiable with the submitted character. Input from KR would be appreciated.

Possibly unifiable with 𪂔 (U+2A094) if cognate.

Unify to 𫃛 (U+2B0DB) as per UCV #46.
https://hc.jsecs.org/irg/iwds/ucv.php?show=46#entry-46

Although currently unified to 縠 (U+7E20), NUCV #264a, which is NOT turned to a UCV, makes the unification impossible.

Maybe second radical 130.0 (肉), SC=14, FS=3

Change Radical to 36.0 (夕), SC=23, FS=2

We prefer ⿸麻粊.

Agree to change IDS to ⿰⿱罒𠦂毛.

Agree that FS should be 5.

Agreed. IDS=⿺鬼矣.

Given that the reading is huang2 on 全字庫, the radical is 19.0 力?

Change Radical to 86.0 (火), SC=14, FS=3

The original evidence is from a recent reprint(?) of a classic book, and an additional evidence by Eiso (Comment #6929) is a code chart excerpt. Do they together make valid evidence?

Is Evidence 1 really ⿱龙光 (not 无 etc.) and the same character with that in Evidence 2?

The provided evidence is all from modern reprints. Are there images of original books that can show the glyph is not misprinted?

The evidence is suspected of typographical error. Especially in Evidence 2, the description repeatedly states that the original character had been mis-decomposed into 楊鳥, which strongly suggests that the glyph in question is U+9E09 鸉.

Need to examine evidence by SU Ruixin (comment #9342), just in case for ORG platform.

FYI the 尊經閣文庫 edition of 玉燭寶典 that seems to be the original book of 古逸叢書.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/NDL1450798_%E7%8E%89%E7%87%AD%E5%AE%9D%E5%85%B8_-_%E5%B0%8A%E7%B5%8C%E9%96%A3%E5%8F%A2%E5%88%8A_%E5%B7%BB%EF%BC%93.pdf

Is this glyph stable across editions of 《蠕範》?

Evidence 4 highlights a wrong character.

Evidence 2 looks like ⿰月奍.

Are there older attestations of this person? I am asking this because there were multiple errors regarding Ming personal names found in the past.

Suggest postponing this character for further evidence.

The evidence is blurry. Do you have a higher resolution image?

Do you have a higher resolution image that shows this character clearer?

Is the right side component really 刺? The pronunciation in the context (roảt) rather suggests that it should be 剌.

The evidence image does not include its reading and meaning.

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.

Should the bottom-right component be 𡭽?

Related to [WS2021-01355]

The given similar character data looks mistyped.

I think Evidence 1 is fine to stay here as a reference to the original work.

Evidence 3 does not match the representative glyph.

As for U+2D223 (SAT-04843), we find it semantically more appropriate to have 末 as the rightmost component rather than 未. At the same time, we confirm so far that glyphs with 未 and 末 have mixed appearance in older books, where correspond to the Taisho Tripitaka characters. Given the current state, we most probably keep the representative glyph and add an IVS that has the same structure with the UK glyph.

排䂎？

Evidence 1 is probably related to 历 rather than 厉.