Bifolia created using previous as reference

[Jorge_Stolfi]

Here is what the first looks like with it disabled, it doesn't particularly change the story, you can still see the angle on the final singulion page is carried over from the previous bifolia, and is typically different from the angles of the other 4 pages. The margin offsets are also still preserved between the bifolia.

Sorry but I don't see this supposed alignment.  Perhaps my pareidolioscope is polarized at 90° from yours?

On the 4th page (folio 2 verso) of each bifolio, the width W of the left margin and the tilt T of the left rail on the  seem to be more variable than on the other three pages.  But I don't see much similarity between consecutive bifolios.  Those two variables seem to be just random. The tilt T of the left rail seems to flip between zero (vertical) and a few degrees CCW; but this bias may well be due to how the Scribe placed the bifolio on the table,or whatever. 

But I did notice an interesting correlation. On the pages where the second parag is split by a narrow plant stem, the left rail seems to be strictly parallel to that stem.  See f8r, f49v, and others.

As for why the scribe did this.. I can't say, its beyond the scope of this analysis to determine motive.

In my presentation at Voynich Day 2025, I tried to argue that "agnostic research" is not only unlikely to lead anywhere, but it is actually impossible -- in any field, including the VMS.  Any research attempt must make some assumptions about the origin and nature of the manuscript.  If the assumptions are not explicit, they are implicit in the kind of analysis.  

For instance, much of the research done over the last 100 years assumed, explicitly or implicitly, that it was either an European language in cipher or gibberish; which both implied the "Brain to Vellum" theory -- that the Author himself wrote directly on the vellum as he was encoding the text or running the blabber algorithm.  Which also implied that the text had practically no errors, and that the line breaks were chosen by the Author who knew the meaning of the text or the blabborithm, etc. 

The pictures you posted are very interesting, but the attempts to correlate with the "five scribes" or to find an "ordering" also make several implicit assumptions about the creation process.  Like, that the Scribe would care about being consistent about margins from one bifolio to the next; that he would have the previous folio at hand while scribing the next one; that he folded each bifolio at the same place where it is folded and bound today; and so on.

Scientists did not adopt the scientific method for nothing.  To improve the chances at getting some conclusion, it is better to make a specific hypothesis, then think of the "best" experiment that could disprove it if it is false -- where "best" includes some combination of simpler, cheaper, faster, and especially more convincing.  Which usually means depending on as few assumptions as possible.

All the best, --stolfi