Commentary writing in the Persian literary tradition constitutes a scholarly method for interpreting classical texts, one that has developed distinctive regional features in the Indian subcontinent. Ibrahim Tattavi's commentary on Makhzan al-Asrar stands as one of the most prominent examples of this tradition, yet its methods of critical emendation had not previously been subjected to statistical analysis. This study aims to analyze the methodology of critical emendation in subcontinental commentaries on Makhzan al-Asrar, with particular emphasis on Ibrahim Tattavi's commentary. The research employs a descriptive-analytical method with a quantitative approach. Data were extracted from the analysis of 450 analytical units, derived from an examination of 150 shared verses across three commentaries: those of Ibrahim Tattavi, Muhammad ibn Qawam Balkhi, and Azim Tattavi. Emendations were classified into three categories—lexical, syntactic, and semantic—and the levels of intervention were measured across three tiers: word, verse, and paragraph. The results confirmed the study's main hypothesis, demonstrating that Ibrahim Tattavi's commentary exhibits relatively coherent and measurable patterns in critical emendation. The proportion of linguistic interventions in this commentary, with an index of 1.14, is higher than that of the other two commentaries (0.83 and 0.69, respectively). Furthermore, this commentary follows a hierarchical logic across levels of intervention: lexical emendations are concentrated at the word level, while syntactic and semantic emendations are concentrated at the verse level. In addition, the distribution of emendations follows a wave-like pattern, with density greater in the middle portion of the text. These findings confirm that the emendation method in