[Palaeography] There is evidence of corrections within the text

[MarcoP]

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.
....

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".

Hi David,
you write that in the VMS there are corrections of several "mistakes". I think that your opinion is founded on something that you personally consider as evidence. Am I wrong?

The whole point of discussing "positions we can agree upon" is finding an agreement of what we can consider as evidence, so I think it's correct to refer to "evidence" in the proposed statements. Of course, the statement cannot be changed after it's accepted (the reference to "evidence" cannot be added in  a second time, as you seem to suggest).

It would be helpful if you could make your personal position clear, so that we can try to re-express the statement in a form that is acceptable to you.