Overall, Morten, your comments about the text are written from the point of view of someone with no experience in this area.
It was normal for the top of long-ess to vary from curved to sharp.
It was normal for many scribes to use more than one form for final-ess (besides, it might not be an ess, it might be portad rather than portas).
Your statements do not hold water. Your lack of palaeographic knowledge is very apparent.
It was normal for the top of long-ess to vary from curved to sharp.
It was normal for many scribes to use more than one form for final-ess (besides, it might not be an ess, it might be portad rather than portas).
Your statements do not hold water. Your lack of palaeographic knowledge is very apparent.