[quote="oshfdk" pid='67413' dateline='1749197513']
If there are any good examples of these from f1r, f8r, f17r, f26r, f47r, f70v1, f71r, f93r, f102v1, f116v, then we can try checking these on the multispectral images provided by Beinecke.
[/quote]

f1r: There are several cases of apparent retracing, suggested by glyphs that are darker than the preceding and following ones.  In some of them, such as the @'daiin' in the image below, one can see the original light brown strokes under the darker ones.  Other examples are shown in the image. In the example at bottom left, the retracing may have created an invalid word, with spurious ligatures; the original probably was @ko{Sh}ey;.  In the example at bottom right, the right leg of the first gallows was apparently retraced in the "wrong" way: instead of a single stroke left-up-right-down, the retrace used two descending strokes in the loop, forming a large @o, and a third stroke for the straight part of the leg.  That example also shows how faint the original writing may have become: the left leg of the @k is almost invisible, and it is possible that a  glyph was lost after the @k.  However, the retracing ink does not seem to be as dark as that seen on the Zodiac pages.

f8r: Plenty of retracings, but apparently all by the Scribe him/herself, in order to reinforce glyphs that came ut too fint because of ID, or not quite right, or wrong.  Many of the retracings are @d glyphs. In some, the top loop is unusually large and/or traced in the "wrong" sense.  

f17r: Plenty of retracings, but apparently all by the Scribe him/herself, in order to reinforce glyphs that came ut too fint because of ID, or not quite right, or wrong.  In clip 2, for instance, he/she wrote @'aiir.{Ch}ok' with the pen almost dry, re-inked, went back to retrace the @r and the @c, then continued from the @y onwards.  But in clip ?? there is a misshaped glyph that could be an @m with truncated tail, or an @r with plume that intersected itself.  That could be an explanation for the isolated glyphs with darker strokes: the Scribe was not sure whether the @ds in the draft were @ds or @ms or @gs, so he/she skipped over them; later she asked the Author, went back to the page, and drew all the @ds, with a full pen. 

f26r:  Examples of gallows with loop traced in the wrong way. Example of a @'{Ch}e' turned into @see;.  

f47r:

f70v1: All text and labels seem to be in the "normal" ink, only perhaps darker than usual. There are large variations of stroke color in them but they all seem to be consistent with recharging.  The word @'otodal' at 12:00 on the middle text ring is darker than surrounding ones, so it may have been written out of sequence.  The darker strokes that could be attributed to the Retracer are on a few nymphs, follwing the usual pattern -- hair and har, breasts, body outline.  There are no obvious cases of double-tracing, but some of the dark strokes on the nymph outlines (e. g. on the left breasts) trabsitions abruptly to lighter strokes, as if they had precisely covered part of the latter.

f71r: The Retracer apparently did very little on this page.  Only three of the nymphs have details in significantly darker ink: hair details on two, a "scalloped shower-cap" on the other.    Two glyphs in the middle text ring are somewhat darker than the surrounding ones:  an @l in the word @'l{Sh}eotey' and an isolated @o next to the "notched square" delimiter.  Several other words appear to be retraced, and several glyphs are misshaped to some extent (as in the outer label at 04:45). However, these are all in "normal" ink. Moreover, I believe that this page was one of the first to be produced by the original Scribe; so those mis-shaped glyphs and retracings could be due to him/her, no to the Retracer.

f93r: The Retracer does not seem to have worked on this page. All the text and drawings appear to be in the "normal" ink; and quite legible, with no sign of fading -- not even where some liquid spilled and ran over the page.  Thus there would be no reason to retrace any of it.  The only glyphs that /may/ have been retraced in a darker ink is the @l at the beginning of line 8, which may be darker than the rest; but it seems still compatible with recharging effects.

f102v1: The Retracer does not seem to have worked on this page. All the text and drawings appear to be in the "normal" ink; and quite legible, with little fading -- except for the first letter on lines 5, 6, and 8, and the final @'Cy' of the label row at top.  There are many variations in ink density. Some are consistent with recharging, but there are several abrupt transitions from dark to light -- the opposite of what one expects from recharging effects.  These characters are well-formed and generally in the same handwriting as the rest.  This anomlay occurs mostly in glyphs @o, @r, and @d.   My explanation for those is that the original Scribe him/herself went back and retraced some glyphs that had come out too faint, slightly misshaped, or mistaken (such as writing @e or @a instead of @o, @s instead of @d).

f116v: