I like any approach that tries to look for connections between glyphs and word structure and such. But I personally feel that the next step you propose is implausible.
One problem I see is that there would be ambiguities if any glyph can be dropped, to produce a 0 in the implicit binary code. Consider a word 1234. How do we know that those four glyphs belong to the same set? Might it be 123 without 4, followed by a 4 without 123? Or may 3412 have been dropped between 2 and 3?
So if I understand it correctly, a Voynich word 1234 may represent one, two or three plain text letters?
One problem I see is that there would be ambiguities if any glyph can be dropped, to produce a 0 in the implicit binary code. Consider a word 1234. How do we know that those four glyphs belong to the same set? Might it be 123 without 4, followed by a 4 without 123? Or may 3412 have been dropped between 2 and 3?
So if I understand it correctly, a Voynich word 1234 may represent one, two or three plain text letters?