Differences in maṣāḥif al-amṣār

There are many places where one can read about differences between the codices of the main (garrison) cities of the emerging Arab Muslim Empire.
— first ad-Dānī's Muqni fi rasm masahif al-amsar maa kitab al-Naqat,
— GdQ III = Die Geschichte des Korantexts von Gotthelf Berg­sträßer & Otto Pretzl
— in the internet, e.g. www.kuramer.org But tables that do not order the codices by proximity are second best.
Here kuramer's table reordered:

Here here the table I made with Kufa and Basra the other way round:

In this century, or said differently: Since Yasin Dutton's "Red Dots, Green Dots, Yellow Dots and Blue: Some Reflec­tions on the Vocalisation of Early Qur'anic Manu­scripts — Part I / ‮النقط الحمراء والخضراء والصفراء والزرقاء: تٲملات في تشكيل مخطوطات المصحف في عصر مبكر (القسم الٲول)‬" in Journal of Qur'anic Studies Vol. 1, No. 1 (1999), pp. 115-140 we pay more attention to the fact, that in Syria there were two ways of reading and two of marking "end of verse" — and according to some: two codices: Damascus and Ḥomṣ/Ḥimṣ. Cf. Intisar Rabb "Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur'an: Recognition and Authenticity (The Himsī Reading)" in Journal of Qur'anic Studies, 2006
We find an additional lām in 8:6 — for the definite article — not only in manu­scripts
Cambridge University Library: Add. 1125 (BNF Arabe 6140a belongs to the same muṣḥaf)
BL Or 2165 but it is mentioned by Abū Ḥātim Sahl b. Muḥ as-Siǧistānī and al-ʿAsqalānī.
So, Muslim scholars knew of more codices — not mentioned by ad-Dānī because
none of the seven readings canonized by Ibn Muǧāhid are based on them.
see further
[ ص: 271 ] وفي سورة الأنفال في إمام أهل الشام " ما كان للنبي "

عنوان الكتاب: تلخيص الحبير (ط. قرطبة)
المؤلف: ابن حجر العسقلاني؛ أحمد بن علي بن محمد الكناني العسقلاني، أبو الفضل، شهاب الدين، ابن حجر Šihāb ad-Dīn Abū‘l-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn Nūrad-Dīn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad ibn Ḥaǧar al-ʿAsqalānī 773/1372—852/1449
Talḫīṣ al-Ḥabīr fī Takhrīǧ ar-Rāfiʿī al-Kabīr

linear ‒ not for technical reasons

Thomas Milo wrote that, the letters of the King Fuʾād Edition are simpler than Ottoman handwritten ones,  because it was to difficult to print that way.
Actually the Modernists behind the KFE from the Education Ministry and the Pedagogical College an-Naṣārīya wanted easy to read simple letters. The Būlāq type case had many ligatures that they did not want to use:

ʿUṯmān Ṭaha went even further, using even fewer ligature (see at the right margin):

To underline that it was a conscious decision, here some words from the back matter:

On the left of the last to lines I juxtapose words from the back matters with the same words from the Qurʾānic text.