My definition of what constitutes a glyph is not exact, just nearly so. Borderline cases must therefore be considered carefully.

Tahua is where I once began to document glyph for glyph the texts of rongorongo, somewhat like collecting stamps. Each glyph was to be cut out and pasted in orderly rows on papers. After that - my plan was - they should be classified according to Barthel's system and sorted accordingly.

At that stage I had not enough experience to avoid making what now appears as obvious mistakes. E.g. I did not understand that this was a single glyph (not two):

Now I know that these two bent henua together constitute one glyph (with a meaning greater than the sum of the meanings of its two parts).

So far I have not found any other similar examples; cases where my definition leads to two glyphs, but where insight tells us that it is only one glyph.

But we may have the opposite case, where insight tells us that there are two glyphs. Example:

Without the parallel glyphs in H and P these two glyphs in Q would tend to be regarded as a single glyph. But the limbs which are 'cut off' in H ('arm') and P ('leg') suggest that also Q should contain a sign 'cut off' ('torso' and 'arm'). My interpretation of this part of the texts (i.e. that we are reading about the moment when one year is ending and another is starting) leads us to the insight that this sign of 'cut off' means just that; a 'break' in the flow of time (events, actions).

I have now started to count glyphs in Tahua and I arrived at 313 (not 314 glyphs) from Aa1-1 to Aa4-62 (after which glyph a new part of the text evidently is beginning) and I then felt that I had to reconsider - is there somewhere in that interval a case where I mistakenly may have not observed that there were two glyphs instead of one? Yes, there was such a case:

This constellation I have labeled as Aa1-15 but now I believed that maybe it was two glyphs.

Manipulating the numbers of glyphs like this, though, is a suspicious behaviour. Therefore I looked through all the glyphs of Tahua and made a little list over possible similar cases. I was going to take due consideration to the results from this list when counting the glyphs of Tahua. (However, the resulting numbers could then - of course - possibly make me once again reconsider, reverting to count these 'binary' glyphs as single glyphs.)

Now, after having investigated this list over possible similar cases and counted glyphs again I have decided that when there is this type of gap between the left and right parts of a glyph I shall continue to regard them as a single glyph and not count them as two.

And a quick look at Keiti confirms that this is the right decision - only Ea2-28 has such a short gap between its left and right parts and the number of side a would be 315 - instead of 314 - if we divided Ea2-28 into two glyphs. How to divide texts into glyphs is no longer just a practical matter, 100 * π is a pattern to be searched for.