I mostly agree with this chart but I'm wondering why EVA-y isn't in there (or, at least, the straight-legged version of EVA-y which is a c-shape with a long leg).
One of the things that could potentially be interpreted differently from the way you've classified the shape construction is the tails on EVA-r and EVA-s. If you give the tail a more flexible positioning (top of letter or bottom of letter both being acceptable), then one can think of EVA-r as "i" with a tail and EVA-n/EVA-m at the ends of words, where it looks like a V or W, as a tail at the bottom of the letter. It means the idea doesn't fit quite as neatly into a grid, but it could account, in a very simple and consistent way, for the EVA-n/EVA-m shapes.
Oh, I just noticed another one that I had classified differently. Hang on, I'll try to hunt up my version of this (I have a chart too)... back in 10 minutes, I have to forward some files to a client, then I'll and get a screensnap of my version so we can compare notes
One of the things that could potentially be interpreted differently from the way you've classified the shape construction is the tails on EVA-r and EVA-s. If you give the tail a more flexible positioning (top of letter or bottom of letter both being acceptable), then one can think of EVA-r as "i" with a tail and EVA-n/EVA-m at the ends of words, where it looks like a V or W, as a tail at the bottom of the letter. It means the idea doesn't fit quite as neatly into a grid, but it could account, in a very simple and consistent way, for the EVA-n/EVA-m shapes.
Oh, I just noticed another one that I had classified differently. Hang on, I'll try to hunt up my version of this (I have a chart too)... back in 10 minutes, I have to forward some files to a client, then I'll and get a screensnap of my version so we can compare notes