Cairo1924 Standard Text Cairo

I am a single issue warrior. I fight against the King Fuad Edition as the Standard Qur'ān.
Corpus Coranicum, Gerd-Rüdiger Puin, and Marijn van Putten are to be con­vinced that they are wrong.
My arguments are of two kinds.
There is no Standard Edition because there are about thirty para­meters going into a muṣḥaf.
Gizeh 1924/ KFE/ Official Egyptian Print is a bad choice because of mis­takes.

Gizeh 1924—the edition Corpus Coranicum displays as the refe­rence and uses as the basis for its elec­tronic text—is bad because
‒ the use of matres lectionis is ill-defined (MOSTLY Ibn Naǧāḥ, but about 5% ad-Dānī, no reasons given, and no list published).
      the Lybian muṣḥaf follows 100% ad-Dānī,
      other Maghrebian editions follow al-Ḫarrāz, which is mostly Ibn Naǧāḥ
      Indonesia and Iran make their own mix, but at least lists are published with their choices.
      It is known that Qaṭar's and Saʿudia's rasms differ at one point each from Cairo1952.
      Nobody has given reasons for the cases, where Cairo follows ad-Dānī (not Ibn Naǧāḥ),

‒ the signalling of mute vowel letters is "too Arab", i.e. whereas missing leng­thening is always corrected by a small vowel letter, the short­en­ing (i.e. ignoring) of a vowel letter is only marked when it is "not obvious", i.e. when it is not because of a closed syllable, but for reasons of rhyme.
Many editions do not have extra signs for cor­rect­ing the length of a vowel, but Iranian, Indo­nesian, Indian editions show ALL short­ened vowels as such (or none at all).

‒ whereas Eastern editions write the end of suras as if there is a pause between suras,
    and Western editions as if the next sura follows without pause with the basmala first,
    the 1924 King Fuad Edition writes the end of the sura as if the next sura follows immediately.
This seems to be a mistake, a mistake corrected in 1952, corrected in the Sauʿdi editions and all later Editions.
   
Marijn writes of "Cairo" but he does not see,
that any muṣḥaf consists of
‒ sura (always the same)
‒ sura names (quite different)
‒ sura titel boxes (quite different)
‒ divisions like half, manzil, ǧuz, ḥizb (quite different in different editions)
‒ end of verse, numbers
‒ catch words or not, chronology or not, "amen"or not, omen or not
‒ indication of saǧadāt
‒ reading signs (assimilation, shortening, lenthening, imala ...)
‒ ḥarakāt, tašdīd, madd
‒ the basic text
Although van Putten is interested in the basic text ONLY,
he calls that "Cairo".

The left side is strange: Sura 143 doesn't exist, an-nisāʾ 143 is meant.
What we find in Cairo 46:5 is even stranger:


No trace of the word in question.
What we do find in the verse before looks very different from what van Putten calls "Cairo"

Please call it "Basic Quranic Text" "rasm plus" or anything of the sort.
"Cairo" short for "Gizeh 1924" is not a sceleton, it is a masoretic text!
a bundle of features that make a muṣḥaf!
I am sure you have no idea what "Gizeh 1924" aka "King Fu'ad" is.
You could have taken ANY muṣḥaf in the WORLD (except Turkey and Persia!)!


They all have the same Basic Quranic Text, and that's all that you are interested in here.
So please, stop calling "it" "Cairo"!