The text is a small fragment, with its preserved part almost identical to KUB 5.3+ obv. I 9-18, so that the broken parts can be restored by the latter. The first line refers to an obligation of the courtiers and chariot-drivers to prevent harm to the king's person caused by any kind of negligence. In order to determine the success of the measurement, a KIN oracle is consulted first, followed by a visceral show for verification. Of the latter only the oracle question is preserved. According to line 9, only the exta of one sheep is examined ('let the exta be favorable'), whereas in the parallel text KUB 5.3+, the exta of two sheep are observed ('let the first exta be favorable and the second one unfavorable'). Whether this deviation is due to an error or if it indicates that KUB 52.64 only partially corresponds to KUB 5.3+ cannot be determined. However, since the KIN procedure apparently consists of the same symbol constellations, the copying of the texts might have served for academic purposes rather than for actual oracle procedures.

The cuneiform copy was published by Archi A. 1983c, who, in the overview of the contents of KUB 52 notes the similarities of the text to KUB 5.3+, KUB 5.4+ and KUB 18.12+.

The fragment shows a careful and even handwriting, with signs deeply impressed into the clay. The sign shapes are very similar to the ones of KUB 50.11 (CTH 563.4) which, according to Y. Sakuma (see the note in S. Košak, hethiter.net/: hetkonk (2.plus), retrieval date 12/06/2023), might be an indirect join to KUB 52.64. The handwriting of both texts is indeed very similar. Yet, some signs look slightly different. Cf., e.g. RU in KUB 52.64 9′ whose middle vertical is smaller than the other ones whereas in KUB 50.11 4′ they are almost at the same height; cf. also TI in KUB 52.64 6′ with the top of the horizontal at almost the same height as the vertical and the first Winkelhaken crossing the leg of the horizontal whereas in KUB 50.11 1′ the top of the vertical is higher than the one of the horizontal and the first Winkelhaken does not cross the leg of the horizontal. Since the approximate position of KUB 50.11 in relation to KUB 52.64 cannot be determined and since the similar handwriting does not necessarily mean that both fragments belong to the same tablets, both fragments are treated in the present edition separately. In regard to paleography, both fragments show, in contrast to KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+, the younger variants of DA and IT with an unbroken horizontal wedge. Although these signs had already been in use during the IIIb period this might indicate that KUB 50.11 and KUB 52.64 have been written at a later stage than KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+.

The almost identical content of KUB 52.64 and KUB 5.3+ obv. I 9-18 suggests that it may be a younger copy of KUB 5.3+ and used for educational purposes. This is indicated by the identical symbol constellation of the oracle procedure in both texts, which would be unusual if they were reports on separately conducted oracle investigations. However, KUB 52.64 differs from KUB 5.3+ obv. I 9–18 in that it only asks for a favorable outcome of the exta (line 8′), and not for a favorable outcome of the first exta and an unfavorable one of the second as is the case with KUB 5.3+ obv. I 18–19. Whether this deviation is due to an error or if it indicates that KUB 52.64 only partically corresponds to KUB 5.3+ cannot be determined.