Grishka wrote: I'm by no means bored, but then (to misquote Pilate and John), "What is Original"? For a given MS, we can only ask about first layer and possible later layers, and if found, from what time.

Most textual critics, from the Alexandrian editors of Homer to F. J. Child to A. E. Housman, would likely disagree with that.

If you would enlighten us about the current state of research, I'd be grateful.

The place to start is not with me but with the Digital Index of Middle English Verse, which lists a bunch of facsimiles and editions. The particular link for this piece is

https://www.dimev.net/record.php?recID=5053.

What looks like the latest facsimile, with comments, is http://wpwt.soton.ac.uk/harl978/sumerms.htm.

As for the question whether the scribe (of the earliest layer) was the composer, the answer is of course NO.

Unnecessary assumptions are the root of all evil. :-p My inclination is to agree with you, but I didn't invent the idea that the scribe was the composer. Wooldridge proposed it in his revision of Chapell, and others have at least considered the idea.

Also, some have proposed that the notation as it now stands is not original but was revised. Or corrected (not the same thing), which might explain the bad notes.

These are not points on which consensus has been reached.

As for unicode -- I tried it on Mudcat in the past, and came back later and found it messed up. I'll pass.