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.

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

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.

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 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.

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