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.

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.

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.