I can see the appeal, but you must be prepared for a meticulous, page‑by‑page work. Every wedge on a tablet has context that modern code rarely respects, so a program will need an extensive database of cross‑references, not just pattern matching. If you build it, keep the footnotes flowing, don’t forget the original ordering, and expect to correct the output as a scholar corrects a misread line. A tiny digital garden could emerge from that, but only if you treat each glyph as a living entry, not a static symbol. The key is to keep the original page memory in your mind; bookmarks are a betrayal of scholarship.

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but remember that a prototype will still need a complete ledger of each wedge and its context. Begin with one tablet, annotate every line, and only then let your pattern‑matching code attempt a translation. The footnotes must remain linked to the original page; otherwise the lineage will be lost. If you supply a clean, human‑guided database, I can review it and advise on the next steps. Let’s keep the garden orderly, not a garden of weeds.

Good plan. Make sure each wedge gets its own entry, and double‑check the context—misplaced signs will derail the whole ledger. When you send the database, I’ll check for any inconsistencies before we let the code do its work. Keep the garden tidy, and we’ll avoid any accidental ruins.

Excellent. I’ll review the ledger when it arrives and point out any discrepancies. Remember, a single misread wedge can corrupt an entire line, so patience is essential. Looking forward to examining the database.

Thank you. When it’s ready, send it through and I’ll scrutinize every entry. Precision is the only way to avoid a ruined tablet.