Why not positional variation?

[oshfdk]

The combination (Eva) "ld"  ld  is really quite common, and arises e.g. from the combination of ol - dy , al - dy or ol - daiin (etc).
As line final dy (occasionally to rarely) changes into g or dg , both lg and ldg will appear occasionally.

Since we are talking about only a small number of g in the MS, I am sceptical that the probability of ldg can be tested in any significant way.

These 4 below appear to be actual ldg's. To me 4 events with the expected of 0.36 does look statistically significant. However, there is a simple explanation, the model which randomly mixes letters doesn't account for curve-line preferences. So, it would expect ~7 times more ldm's than ldg's, because m is ~7 times more prevalent than g. But there is not a single ldm, as per the transliteration, and this is expected given CLS. To put this differently, if we treat g as the version of m that goes after d, then the expected number of ldg's would be ~3, which is in a very good agreement with the observed of 4.

   

Edit: I'm not sure, but maybe this logic can be used to show that the CLS is more about adjusting glyph shapes to fit the preceding shapes rather than about which glyphs are allowed after which other glyphs.