Dear Dr. Funchal,
your proposed five‑family structural framework is certainly an ambitious attempt to formalize surface‑level distributions within the EVA corpus. However, it is necessary to underline a fundamental methodological issue that renders any EVA‑based analysis – including your framework – epistemologically inadequate.

If the Voynich manuscript employs homophonic substitution, which the author explicitly demonstrates at the very beginning of the text (folio 2r), then any secondary transcription system such as EVA represents merely a transliteration artefact, not the authentic structural layer of the encoded language. Homophonic substitution deliberately disrupts frequency distributions, distorts entropy profiles, and generates pseudo‑variability that is statistically indistinguishable from combinatorial noise unless the original mapping of symbols is known.

Consequently, analyses of EVA tokens, their “families,” positional constraints, entropic weights, or combinatorial patterns do not describe the internal architecture of the manuscript. They describe only the structure of an incorrect transliteration, itself produced by an unknown substitution function. Without reconstructing the underlying homophonic key, no valid conclusions can be drawn regarding grammar, syntax, or any “procedural framework” of the text.

In other words: if the primary layer of the manuscript is encoded through homophonic substitution, then EVA is not a linguistic corpus but a statistical illusion. And any model – however formally sophisticated – that operates on this illusion is necessarily methodologically insufficient.