Is there any protocols to identify what sort of document MS-408 is?

[rikforto]

Out of interest, what is a conlang supposed to look like? Isn't it supposed to look like... a lang?

I think, at least theoretically, there is a real possibility that conlangs have features which are either strictly impossible in natural languages or vanishingly unlikely to evolve from practical use. There is nothing stopping a conlanger from ordering the phonemes, bizarre an aesthetic choice as that would be, and I think deserves some real consideration. The repetitions are harder for me to account for, but also may stem from non-naturalistic processes; instead they may be, as some people have noted, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., a position which is conlang-neutral. The point being that a conlang theory has the possibility of explaining or sitting nicely with the things that are linguistically odd while also explaining those which are linguistically expected.

One must beware, of course, theories which can simply chalk any inconvenient facts up to the choice or error of the author or scribes as those become buckets that hold disproof and make it impossible to falsify such theories. Those looking at the manuscript through a conlang lens must therefore be careful to track when they are assuming away problems or risk joining the hordes of solvers who simply see contradiction as a shortcoming of the data rather than the lens. But conceptually, at least, I think the (historically grounded!) expectation that a conlang look like a natural language can be relaxed to ask questions about what a person might have constructed.