I can not answer this poll question fully. So I vote No.
There are different kinds of "mistakes" in the VMS. First there are the wrong compositions of vords.
You can see these by analysis of the word compositions.
Most of the time these were corrected, by simply placing the correct letter over the wrong letter.
The amount of such mistakes is in the range of 25-50 in the entire VMS. Most of the time it makes reading the correct letter almost impossible.
However, sometimes this is not possible, because there are more letters wrong. Most of the time the scribist did not correct them, and simply rewrote the word after it correctly. Such mistakes can be counted on two hands.
Also there are wrong spacings, or better: spacings that are too narrow and spacings that are to wide. This is inevitable for a handwritten text.
That is not a correction. I agree, and i also see no possibility to correct these.
Evidence.
If you talk about evidence of the corrections, which is the subject of this poll, you need to define not only the correction type, but also what you accept as evidence. It is my experience in the VMS that no matter what you present, it is not regarded as evidence.
In the best scenario, your findings are being discussed but that seems the highest achievable. For something to become evidence it must be accepted by the majority of (professional?) researchers. Until accepted, the better description would be "indications that corrections took place".
There are different kinds of "mistakes" in the VMS. First there are the wrong compositions of vords.
You can see these by analysis of the word compositions.
Most of the time these were corrected, by simply placing the correct letter over the wrong letter.
The amount of such mistakes is in the range of 25-50 in the entire VMS. Most of the time it makes reading the correct letter almost impossible.
However, sometimes this is not possible, because there are more letters wrong. Most of the time the scribist did not correct them, and simply rewrote the word after it correctly. Such mistakes can be counted on two hands.
Also there are wrong spacings, or better: spacings that are too narrow and spacings that are to wide. This is inevitable for a handwritten text.
That is not a correction. I agree, and i also see no possibility to correct these.
Evidence.
If you talk about evidence of the corrections, which is the subject of this poll, you need to define not only the correction type, but also what you accept as evidence. It is my experience in the VMS that no matter what you present, it is not regarded as evidence.
In the best scenario, your findings are being discussed but that seems the highest achievable. For something to become evidence it must be accepted by the majority of (professional?) researchers. Until accepted, the better description would be "indications that corrections took place".