Now that I finally managed to take a good look at your talk and the document, let me say: This looks very interesting (and a ton of work), particularly for dating the addition of the marginalia and therefore probably the main manuscript. The geographical distribution seems relevant to me as well, however, it is probably harder to draw any real conclusions there.
My apologies if I missed it, but have you considered the difference between 'casual' and 'formal' script/documents, both on a individual and general level? A professional scribe might write differently on an official document he reveives pay for compared to a personal note. Similar with a scholar who copies a text for personal use in a hurry or writes a letter to an important benefactor, for example. And a scholar might write differently than a scribe of course. On an overarching level, probably more at least semi-formal manuscripts have survived (and digitized!), which may skew results.
This could very well be relevant here because many of the properties you identified for 116v seem indicative of relatively hurried, informal writing - not connecting parts of letters, variances within just a few lines, no full sentences as far as we can identify... Quite a few of your top matches are also receipts of minor importance that might not warrant some kind of a more formal (proto-)'Kanzleischrift'.
This distinction might also be relevant in relation to your sample. For example, many of your Hessian top matches are from archives and typical archival sources, while Munich entries are primarily from the Bavarian State Library and what we would consider books, with one exception (the State Archives under München). Patterns of script use for different purposes, manuscript preservation and digitization may be misleading here if, say, Hesse financed a digitization initiative for their archives while Bavaria focused on libraries in that regard.
My apologies if I missed it, but have you considered the difference between 'casual' and 'formal' script/documents, both on a individual and general level? A professional scribe might write differently on an official document he reveives pay for compared to a personal note. Similar with a scholar who copies a text for personal use in a hurry or writes a letter to an important benefactor, for example. And a scholar might write differently than a scribe of course. On an overarching level, probably more at least semi-formal manuscripts have survived (and digitized!), which may skew results.
This could very well be relevant here because many of the properties you identified for 116v seem indicative of relatively hurried, informal writing - not connecting parts of letters, variances within just a few lines, no full sentences as far as we can identify... Quite a few of your top matches are also receipts of minor importance that might not warrant some kind of a more formal (proto-)'Kanzleischrift'.
This distinction might also be relevant in relation to your sample. For example, many of your Hessian top matches are from archives and typical archival sources, while Munich entries are primarily from the Bavarian State Library and what we would consider books, with one exception (the State Archives under München). Patterns of script use for different purposes, manuscript preservation and digitization may be misleading here if, say, Hesse financed a digitization initiative for their archives while Bavaria focused on libraries in that regard.