Based on comment #519 from Kushim, I suggest the UCV to be kept and not changed to NUCV.
艸 at the top instead of 艹 as a strict transliteration form is commonly found in many dictionaries as a more "canonical" shape, but they are nearly universally variants.
In IRG past decisions, if a more common form is desired, the glyph shape is simply modified in place instead of encoding the form at another code point. They are variants without a doubt. The argument that both forms are preferred in different contexts, so they should be separately coded, is not a valid reason for disunification. The IVD exists exactly for this use case.
Unification
[ Unresolved from v2.0 ]
Not unified to 𦬟 (U+26B1F).
In the meeting it was suggested by Andrew West to do an ad-hoc disunification for this character.
In that case, UCV #404 can be kept as a UCV.
I agree with his suggestion on the basis that we only do ad-hoc disunifications involving characters which are present in the Kangxi Dictionary, as there are only a limited amount of characters in the Kangxi Dictionary with 艸 at the top instead of 艹, and the majority of them already have encoded counterparts.
The provided evidence shows that the phonetic is 陷 (臽) without a doubt. The writing of 𠂊 as 爫 is fairly common and a number of other UCVs exist (e.g. 争 / 爭). Suggest to add a new UCV level 2 臽 and 舀.
The examples given in the URO are not all variants. For example, 諂 and 謟 are non-cognate.
Given that there is other evidence of use, I suggest that this character doesn't need to be withdrawn. However, unification should still be on the table as I believe they (UTC-03353, U+83EF and U+2C73B) are variants.
I suggest keeping this character in the M-set, and updating U+24172 to use 目 instead of 日. Kangxi Dictionary quotes from 《集韵》 and 《玉篇》 for this character, but the glyphs in those books use 目 instead:
The error in Kangxi seems to stem from 《字彙》 and 《正字通》.
IRG Working Set 2024v3.0
Source: Henry CHAN
Date: Generated on 2025-06-20
Unification
Showing 14 comments.
艸 at the top instead of 艹 as a strict transliteration form is commonly found in many dictionaries as a more "canonical" shape, but they are nearly universally variants.
In IRG past decisions, if a more common form is desired, the glyph shape is simply modified in place instead of encoding the form at another code point. They are variants without a doubt. The argument that both forms are preferred in different contexts, so they should be separately coded, is not a valid reason for disunification. The IVD exists exactly for this use case.
Not unified to 𦬟 (U+26B1F).
In the meeting it was suggested by Andrew West to do an ad-hoc disunification for this character.
In that case, UCV #404 can be kept as a UCV.
I agree with his suggestion on the basis that we only do ad-hoc disunifications involving characters which are present in the Kangxi Dictionary, as there are only a limited amount of characters in the Kangxi Dictionary with 艸 at the top instead of 艹, and the majority of them already have encoded counterparts.
Unify to 𠽏 U+20F4F.
The provided evidence shows that the phonetic is 陷 (臽) without a doubt. The writing of 𠂊 as 爫 is fairly common and a number of other UCVs exist (e.g. 争 / 爭). Suggest to add a new UCV level 2 臽 and 舀.
The examples given in the URO are not all variants. For example, 諂 and 謟 are non-cognate.
Unify to 助 (U+52A9)?
Same case as SAT-08616
Agree with Kushim. Add new UCV 婬 ~ ⿰女⿱爫𠙻.
⿰女⿱爫𠙻 is also not yet coded.
It is found in 《玉篇》 and 《類篇》.
(from MOE Variants Dictionary)
Unify to 㒓 (U+3493) and add new UCV of 達 and 𨔶.
See also 01960 which is a variant of 橽 (U+6A7D):
Per Kushim's comment, there are two variants which are disunified, but are in Extension B:
𣿔 ~ 澾
𩍠 ~ 韃
Unify to 淄 and add a new UCV of 甾 and ⿱巛⿶凵士.
Unify to 䅻 with new UCV of 离 and 𮂬 level 2.
Support unification to 蝱.
There are a huge number of variants involving 亡 and 亾, and the bulk of encoded ones are in Extension B:
㠩 U+3829 = 巟 U+5DDF
㡃 U+3843 = 㡆 U+3846
𧠬 U+2782C = 𧠰 U+27830
𮎰 U+2E3B0 = 荒 U+8352
𥞙 U+25799 = 𥡃 U+25843
𥿪 U+25FEA = 𥿼 U+25FFC
𩢯 U+298AF = 𩣇 U+298C7
There are some other unencoded examples:
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=14706
Source: https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=14701
Given that there is other evidence of use, I suggest that this character doesn't need to be withdrawn. However, unification should still be on the table as I believe they (UTC-03353, U+83EF and U+2C73B) are variants.
Unification to 狃 (U+72C3) with new UCV 丑 and 丒?
U+247C1 𤟁 (Extension B, TF-3076) = U+5CF1 峱
U+2B788 𫞈 (Extension D, JH-JTB2FC) = U+677B 杻
⿰糹丒 is currently not coded but can be found at https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=33170:
⿰金丒 is currently not coded but can be found at https://dict.variants.moe.edu.tw/dictView.jsp?ID=47095:
Unify to 邦 (U+90A6).
The evidences show ⿰龵阝 which should be unifiable with 邦 (U+90A6) without a doubt.
See U+26C25 (Ext B):
Attributes
Showing 1 comments.
务 should be counted as ⿱攵力 here per Kangxi conventions.
Evidence
Showing 1 comments.
Other
Showing 4 comments.
The error in Kangxi seems to stem from 《字彙》 and 《正字通》.
Another form of this character is ⿰睪毛.