1. Introduction
The tradition of writing commentaries on Makhzan al-Asrar can also be regarded as part of the history of the development of the understanding of classical Persian texts. The profound connection of the Persian language with the scholarly and literary traditions of this region has led to the emergence of commentaries that, in addition to elucidating the text, reflect the interpretive taste, cultural contexts, and particular linguistic horizons of the Indian subcontinent (Novak, 2024: 23). The Tatavi commentary is no exception to this rule, and his particular method of explaining the verses can be compared with other commentaries in terms of the degree of focus on lexical, syntactic, and semantic correction (Heydari-Arjlu, 1400: 12).
The aim of the present study is to analyze the methodology of critical editing in subcontinental commentaries on Makhzan al-Asrar, with emphasis on the commentary of Ibrahim Tatavi. This quantitative study seeks to answer the main question of whether Ibrahim Tatavi’s commentary actually follows coherent and systematic patterns in the method of critical editing.

2. Methodology
The textual population of the study consists of three commentaries on Makhzan al-Asrar, namely those of Ibrahim Tatavi, Mohammad Ebn Qavam Balkhi, and Azim Tatavi. The unit of analysis is the commentary on each verse in each of these three works. The research sample consists of 150 common verses from Makhzan al-Asrar, bringing the total number of analytical units to 450. The verses were selected from the beginning, middle, and end sections of the text in order to maintain an appropriate distribution throughout the work. The commentaries belong to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries AH and make it possible to conduct a comparative examination of editing methods in the tradition of subcontinental commentary writing. The commentaries were selected based on their significance in the tradition of subcontinental commentary writing and the availability of a manuscript or reliable printed edition.

3. Discussion
The nature of Makhzan al-Asrar has provided the basis for the formation of three main levels of commentator intervention, namely lexical, syntactic, and semantic intervention; these are the levels that have served as the basis for the classification and statistical analysis of critical corrections in the present study.

Studies conducted on the structure and content of Makhzan al-Asrar have also shown that, because of the connection between wisdom, allegory, and compressed language, this work has always allowed for diverse readings.
The quantitative analysis of lexical, syntactic, and semantic corrections in subcontinental commentaries reveals not only the extent of intervention in the text, but also the commentator’s manner of viewing the text. Accordingly, the statistical pattern of the distribution of corrections can be regarded as an indication of the commentators’ methodological preferences.

4. Conclusion
The commentary of Ibrahim Tatavi possesses relatively coherent and measurable patterns in its method of critical editing. First, compared with the other two commentaries, Tatavi’s commentary allocates a significantly higher proportion of its interventions to lexical and syntactic corrections, such that the ratio of linguistic interventions (lexical and syntactic) to semantic interventions in this commentary is 1.14, whereas this ratio is 0.83 in the Balkhi commentary and 0.69 in the Azim commentary. This difference is not merely numerical; rather, it indicates a difference in the logic and philosophy of editing. Furthermore, Tatavi’s commentary follows a hierarchical and coherent logic in its levels of intervention; lexical corrections are predominantly concentrated at the word level (73.68 percent), while syntactic and semantic corrections occur at the verse level (52.38 percent and 50 percent), and more complex semantic interventions are located at the paragraph level (28.57 percent). This logical stratification indicates that Tattavi corrected and explained the text according to precise and preconceived principles, rather than in an occasional and unsystematic manner. The distribution of corrections throughout the text follows a wave-like pattern; the interval from 76 to 100, with an average of 6.6 corrections per five verses, constitutes the densest point of the commentator’s interventions, indicating that Tattavi studied the text critically and differentially, identified difficult or complex sections, and devoted greater attention to them. Therefore, this study not only confirms that Ibrahim Tattavi’s commentary possesses coherent patterns in critical editing, but also demonstrates these patterns quantitatively and in a measurable manner.