> I included just the ones that were the same visual representation, U+26D4 is a different symbol. The glyph for U+1F6C7 seems to be missing in most places, I can't find an authoritative representation of it to confirm it's the same visual symbol.
I don't think that there's any meaningful sense in which two Unicode code points may be said to have, or not have, the same symbol, except in reference to a particular font. The standard just indicates some possibilities:
> The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts. The particular fonts used in these charts were provided to the Unicode Consortium by a number of different font designers, who own the rights to the fonts.
I don't think that there's any meaningful sense in which two Unicode code points may be said to have, or not have, the same symbol, except in reference to a particular font. The standard just indicates some possibilities:
> The shapes of the reference glyphs used in these code charts are not prescriptive. Considerable variation is to be expected in actual fonts. The particular fonts used in these charts were provided to the Unicode Consortium by a number of different font designers, who own the rights to the fonts.