Part 2
To put the directional pattern into a broader context, I converted the structural data into a Sankey-style diagram.
Edges below 50 occurrences are omitted for readability, so node totals are not meant to be strictly conserved.
The diagram shows the bridge structure from a mirror/reverse-reading perspective:
VL -> VR -> following family
Here, VL and VR are the two parts that, across a word boundary, form a bigram that is read as a vowel. In principle, the bigram can convey two possible pieces of information.
What I find interesting is not just one particular chain such as kedy qo..., but the broader pattern. Many different VL inputs on the left do not scatter randomly. Instead, they converge through a small number of VR carriers into a few distinct output families. "Chaos" turns into order, as you can clearly see in the picture
This is the point I was trying to make above: in normal EVA direction, these patterns appear as strange dependencies across word spaces. In mirror direction, they become local routing structures. The visible EVA space lies at the hinge where the stream is routed into a family.
From a cipher perspective, this is where it becomes interesting.
One possible interpretation is that the bridge is not just a vowel-like bigram. It may encode both the carrier family and a selector for how the following family form is to be interpreted. The VL glyph does not carry a fixed value on its own - it's may function as a selector. VR is the vowel. The combination of VL + VR then determines which route of the following family is active.
For example, using the E-family only schematically:
VL = q + VR = y -> E-family route A
VL = o + VR = y -> E-family route B
VL = ch + VR = y -> E-family route C
In such a system, a form like "ed" would not have one fixed value everywhere. Its value would depend on the bridge leading into it.
So, schematically, as an example (no plain text) reverse reading:
Assumption:
VR = y = "e"
q + y + ed could represent one value qy=e+ed = "en"
o + y + ed another, oy = e + ed = "em"
ch + y + ed another. chy = a+ ed ="den"
The point is not a specific plaintext value here. The point is the mechanism: the repeated family form may remain visually similar, while its actual function is selected by the bridge that leads into it.
The same principle may apply to other families as well: the AIIN-family, the A/AR-family, the O/OR-family, and so on. Some of those links are partly definitional, so I would not use them as proof by themselves. The more important point is the overall routing pattern: broad input on the VL side, a smaller number of VR carriers, and then a much clearer family structure.
Of course, this is still only a structural hypothesis. But it offers a possible cipher-based explanation for two otherwise very odd features of the VMS:
First, why the text is so repetitive on the surface.
Second, why these repetitions are still so strongly constrained by their surroundings.
In other words: the repeated forms may not be repeated plaintext words. They may be repeated family-forms whose value is selected by the bridge that leads into them.
And:
The visible EVA spaces do not behave like ordinary word boundaries. They appear to lie inside a larger structural unit, possibly at the hinge of a routing mechanism.
The third post will follow a little later...