About the binding(s?) and missing folios

[oshfdk]

And her preliminary results seem to indicate that at least for q20, the intended reading order should have been to unbind all bifoliae and read one completely, front (both halves) and back, before starting another one. If the whole manuscript follows this formula (and it looks like it does), then binding is a mistake that someone understanding the text wouldn't have done

Are there historical examples of large collections of texts that were written on individual bifolios and were supposed to be kept as separate bifolios and read bifolio after bifolio? Seems like a strange arrangement to me.

Note that with a few exceptions that could very well be designed for centerfolds, texts and designs do not cross the centerline of bifolios, which to me suggests that these were likely intended to be bound.