Places where the author notes a mismatch between the “correct” word and the word on the paper, I wish they’d presented the morse code difference too. Otherwise, pretty interesting!

It's clear that the author of the pieces of paper knew several words to be incorrect: "lisstd" (should be "linnet"), "piped" (should be "biped") and "meraccous" (should be "meracious") have little x's under them (the cross under "piped" is specifically under the first "p"); while "tertal" (should be tergal), "palm" (should be "bank"), and "dsrch" (should be "duck") are all underlined.

Maybe they looked into it and found it wasn’t super relevant nor interesting, but while reading the paper I found myself wondering about the “edit distances” in those typos.

Ex: ‘e’ is dot, ‘t’ is dash; making a /t/e/ substitution seem very plausible, and my hypothesis is that including that extra layer of info would be interesting. I didn’t go through all the others, and would also be willing to believe it’s a dead end.