Thanks for the corrections, but I am specifically talking about semantics from the Unicode Technical Committee's perspective, of the underlying Unicode codepoint(s). There is a reason some end-user-viewable glyphs can be formed in multiple ways, sometimes with standalone codepoints (precompositions, sure) and sometimes via the use of combining marks. You have to go back to the Unicode project's actual founding vision, and its basis for accepting new codepoints or declining to do so. People are surprised to learn it has little to do with what the human-visible end result looks like.