The oddities of the bigram "ed"

[ReneZ]

I like your first graph, which is very striking.
Just a minor question or perhaps a nitpick: what exactly do you mean with:

That is "ed" compared to the top 100 bigrams by total count and percentage of pages.

These would be two different lists. Is it the superset of these two lists, or rather the cross-section?

With respect to Currier, in his paper he has a list of points that help to distinguish his A vs. B languages. While 'ed' only appears in B language, he never mentions this bigram as a discriminator.

Have you checked this page: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. ?
There is some overlap with what you are showing.

Also, in your first graph, there are some points near the top (close to 100% of page coverage) but with a relatively low total count. These may be of interest as well.

Finally, bigram statistics depend heavily on the transliteration alphabet. It would be worth using something different than Eva, not because it would be better or worse, but because it may bring a different (additional) perspective. This will not affect the specific bigram 'ed' too much though, so if that is your main focus, it is not too important.