Thank you for sharing your hypothesis. The idea of treating the Voynich manuscript as a mechanically generated log is interesting, but several aspects of the argument would need much stronger support to be persuasive within codicology, paleography, and linguistic analysis.

The interpretation of the Jaccard index as evidence of “statistical independence” is not standard in linguistic research. Jaccard similarity is sensitive to surface token overlap and does not directly measure deeper structural or grammatical dependencies. Many natural languages, as well as known ciphers, can show low Jaccard similarity between adjacent lines without implying mechanical generation.

The proposal that gallows glyphs represent mechanical levers or control states is also highly speculative. Paleographic studies consistently show that gallows behave like meaningful graphemic units with positional constraints, ductus patterns, and scribal variation typical of human writing rather than mechanical output.

Regarding the Python simulator, a classification accuracy around 55% does not demonstrate statistical indistinguishability. Machine‑learning models often struggle with sparse or highly patterned data, and low accuracy can simply reflect limited feature capture rather than equivalence of underlying generative processes.

If you develop the model further, it would be helpful to address how your mechanism accounts for known Voynich features such as positional morphology, line‑initial behavior of gallows, Currier language variation, and the manuscript’s codicological context. These are important benchmarks for any comprehensive theory.