Unicode fundamental character identity

[piotrunio-2...@wp.pl via Unicode]

In  www.unicode.org UTC Document Register 2025 (unicode.org) , I have submitted 
a new proposal which is  www.unicode.org L2/25-037 . However, when it came time 
for  www.unicode.org L2/25-010  to review it, they concluded that supposedly do 
not constitute differences in plain text and that the issues can be solved by 
using appropriate fonts.   In case of the HP 264x character set, the two 
characters are clearly shown to have distinct plain text usage and source 
character set encoding. There have already been countless precedents for 
distinct encodings within the same legacy codepage resulting in distinct 
Unicode encodings. This cannot be solved by using appropriate fonts as they are 
two different characters from the same character set, and therefore the font 
would have to include both characters in order to correctly represent their HP 
264x usage.   In case of PETSCII and Apple II character set, the character 
identities of box drawings are fundamentally different than that of 1÷8 blocks. 
This is because the edge box drawings are based on strokes and are therefore 
dependent on the font weight, whereas the 1÷8 blocks are tied to a specific 
proportion of the bounding box. The fact that some of the mappings to 1÷8 
blocks actually have thickness equivalent to 1÷4 bounding box in C64 or 1÷7 
bounding box horizontally in Apple II indicates that the mapping to 1÷8 blocks 
does not correctly represent the fundamental character identity, and therefore 
this also cannot be solved by using appropriate fonts because 1÷8 blocks cannot 
possibly be made consistent with stems of other thickness than 1÷8 of bounding 
box.   Now let's contrast that with the proposal   www.unicode.org 
L2/23-252  for disunifying symbols from emoji, that supposedly got accepted for 
Unicode 17.0. In my opinion, those symbols do not have an actual fundamental 
typographical distinction, but a superficial one based on the emoji ideology, 
as in plain text it doesn't matter whether a character is referred to as an 
emoji or not. If every single Unicode character was referred to as an emoji, 
that wouldn't matter to plain text, let alone semigraphical text. I'm 
not demanding that L2/23-252 be cancelled, but I'm astonished as to how 
emoji ideology gets the distinction precedence over the actual typographical 
distinction of stem weight versus 1÷8 bounding box.   So, deep down, what 
please is the Unicode fundamental character identity that allows characters to 
be considered distinct just because they are identified as emoji, but also 
falsely unifies strokes to exact proportion of 1÷8 bounding box despite evident 
counter examples?