ARTIFACTS IN THE TEXT.

[-JKP-]

That parenthesis shape (#5) is quite often found in documents written with Latin characters. It is the same as the 9 char. Some scribes wrote it both ways in the same manuscript, sometimes in the same line.

I don't know if it means the same thing in the VMS, but in regular scripts, it's the same.

[Aga Tentakulus]

@Wladimir
You can delete number 12 / 80v.
The second bracket is from the 9 in the top line.
There is no =

[Wladimir D]

@AGA/   The double parenthesis in example 14, not 12.

[Aga Tentakulus]

   
I mean 12,

[Wladimir D]

In Example 12, we insert a bracket under the bench. Underlined in green.

[Wladimir D]

How and why the daub occurred in the following example. Why is the   connector of hook 4 at the top?
It seems to me that eva-c was written first. Then, a hook was written (green). Then they wrote a vertical line and added a horizontal line (blue).
As a result, the prefix “4o” with a line at the top in the first version should have turned out.
   

[Anton]

I think he aimed at writing a normal qo, but occasionally the loop of q got exessively complanate, so to make clear that it's a q he added a more "explicit" loop - that shown in green in your second variant.

[-JKP-]

Wladimir, that's an interesting proposal, since there are several other examples of the qo pattern with macron-like-shapes. Even more than you posted... there are a couple which look as though a macron has been sneaked in under the q shape to hide it. I think I've posted them in earlier threads (it's possible you have also).

[Wladimir D]

Page 81v has the word You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. At first in this word, the symbol eva-o was represented by a large dot. Then corrected by the usual writing with two strokes c + mirror c. As a result, the vertical dimension “O” has become larger than any “o” on this page, and also larger than the “a” in this word.
Another example on page 33v. This is not eva-d. Here, not a monogram (curl) was added to the blot (point), but a mirrored “c” (a gap is visible).
Both of these fixes brought transparency to eva-o. What is the point of these corrections if the vast majority of blots are not corrected? There is only one answer, a blot (dot) and eva-o are different glyphs.
Statistics also play on the side of this conclusion.
On page 81v, the prefix “qo” is spelled 43 times. And only in 3 cases does eva-o turn into a blot (see the tab). What is the likelihood that a scribe will accidentally repeat a blob in the same word? That is, qoky (2 times per page) and q•ky are different words.
   
Otherwise, symbols based on eva-e should regularly form a blot. This is eva - a, s, d, b, c, g, y, o and benches.
I have done the blot counts on page 81v and presented them in a diagram. (The second pair of bars shows the sum of all types of benches)
   
Why does a blot regularly appear on the benches?
The number of blots in the benches (14%) refers to the sum of all blots in the remaining symbols (1.5%) as 10: 1. But they are all based on eva - e.

[Wladimir D]

Another ligature not included in v101, extended EVA, or Jim Reeds table. Eva-l with a dash on f4r. It is possible that the example with You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. makes the same sense.
Together with code 246 (extended eva), this ligature explains the principle of constructing sequences of ligatures (glyphs).
On f51r, code 246 is written at the bottom.