I can give a list of corrections. I started documenting them years ago. I just don't have TIME to hunt it up and add more examples to flesh it out for an audience.
I abandoned the task of collecting and documenting the corrections (and anomalies) because it was clear after a couple of dozen folios that there were lots of corrections. That's all I needed to know. When you create four transcripts you see EVERY character many times and you note the patterns. It isn't necessary to screensnap them or to record them to know that they are there.
There is learning and there is proving. As far as glyph shapes and corrections are concerned, I was learning, not trying to prove anything. I wanted to solve the VMS, not discuss it every day for the rest of my life!
It's like the palaeography. I've spent over a decade collecting samples to match the text on f116v. I don't need samples to know it's text that is typical for the early-mid 15th century. I can see that at a glance, so can any palaeographer. But all the nonpalaeographers cannot, so I spend untold hours documenting it so I can prove it to a lay audience ("lay" in the strict sense of palaeography, not research or history in general, since there are many who are skilled in other areas). I considered the palaeography to be more worthy of study than corrections because it MIGHT fill in some holes in the provenance. Corrections are low priority. I know they are there. If people don't believe it then they can create a few transcripts themselves (I've made four). It takes two or three months to create and double-check a really good accurate transcript.
I abandoned the task of collecting and documenting the corrections (and anomalies) because it was clear after a couple of dozen folios that there were lots of corrections. That's all I needed to know. When you create four transcripts you see EVERY character many times and you note the patterns. It isn't necessary to screensnap them or to record them to know that they are there.
There is learning and there is proving. As far as glyph shapes and corrections are concerned, I was learning, not trying to prove anything. I wanted to solve the VMS, not discuss it every day for the rest of my life!
It's like the palaeography. I've spent over a decade collecting samples to match the text on f116v. I don't need samples to know it's text that is typical for the early-mid 15th century. I can see that at a glance, so can any palaeographer. But all the nonpalaeographers cannot, so I spend untold hours documenting it so I can prove it to a lay audience ("lay" in the strict sense of palaeography, not research or history in general, since there are many who are skilled in other areas). I considered the palaeography to be more worthy of study than corrections because it MIGHT fill in some holes in the provenance. Corrections are low priority. I know they are there. If people don't believe it then they can create a few transcripts themselves (I've made four). It takes two or three months to create and double-check a really good accurate transcript.