[split] (lack of) scribal mistakes / corrections

[Torsten]

That's why I put "mistake" in quotes - no way to know what was intended until we can read it. There are lots of examples in Scribe 1's work where they write a glyph that is unique or unusual but that MIGHT have been intended to be something more typical. Examples can be found on 7r line 1 [looks like qko], 18r line 1 [looks like cf], the 3-shaped character on 10r, at the beginning of the last and second-to-last line, and more.

Unusual or rare forms don't necessarily indicate mistakes. For instance the word <chedy> occurs only once in Currier A but is the most frequent word in Currier B. A single occurrence of a form that looks unusual in one section may simply reflect a stage in the text's evolution rather than a scribal mistake.

Regarding folio 10r, I discussed the two unusual "3"-glyphs back in 2014 (p. 33 in You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.). The lines f10r.P.8–12 start with qo, oy, oq, 3o, and 3o — a cluster of unusual word-initial combinations in adjacent lines. This looks more like local experimentation during writing than scribal mistakes.