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 extispicy 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 texts was assigned to CTH 563 by Y. Sakuma (August 29, 2005; July 27, 2006), who also proposed an indirect join with KUB 52.64. As mentioned in the introduction to CTH 563, this connection is quite plausible due to the similarities in handwriting. However, the two fragments could also be parts of different texts created by the same scribe. Since the relationship between the two fragments remains unclear, they are treated separately here.

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. However, this does not necessarily mean that KUB 50.11 and KUB 52.64 have been written at a later stage than KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+. Rather, they might have been written by a scribe who, in contrast to the scribes of KUB 5.3+ and KUB 5.4+ used the younger variants of DA and IT.

The almost identical content of KUB 52.64 and KUB 5.3+ obv. I 9-18 might be taken as evidence that one of these texts is a copy of the other. This assumption is supported by the observation that the arrangement of KIN symbols is the same in both texts, which would be unusual if they were reports from independently conducted oracle investigations. However, KUB 52.64 differs from KUB 5.3+ obv. I 9–18 in that it only requests a favorable outcome for one exta (line 8′), whereas KUB 5.3+ obv. I 18–19 asks for a favorable outcome for the first exta and an unfavorable one for the second. The reason for this discrepancy remains unclear.

Several scenarios could explain this difference. One possibility is that one of the texts is either a copy or a partial copy of the other, created as a backup. Another potential explanation is that the deviation resulted from a mistake made by the scribe before the oracle procedure was conducted. This scenario is supported by other oracle reports, which indicate that it was common practice to first write down the oracle questions, creating a kind of questionnaire, and to record the results later.

Alternatively, the texts may reflect various stages in documenting the oracle findings and consolidating them into a single document. The observation that KUB 52.64 requests just one favorable SU outcome, while KUB 5.3+ asks for a favorable outcome from the first exta and an unfavorable outcome from the second, could indicate that KUB 52.64 recorded the same KIN oracle but a different SU procedure.

Another possibility would be that one of the texts was written for educational purposes. Although there is little evidence for the latter scenario, it is not too far-fetched. If we take into consideration that oracle texts were technical texts by nature, it can be well imagined that scribes used existing oracle reports for training purposes.