About the binding(s?) and missing folios

[Cuagga]

And her preliminary results seem to indicate that at least for q20, the intended reading order should have been to unbind all bifoliae and read one completely, front (both halves) and back, before starting another one. If the whole manuscript follows this formula (and it looks like it does), then binding is a mistake that someone understanding the text wouldn't have done

Are there historical examples of large collections of texts that were written on individual bifolios and were supposed to be kept as separate bifolios and read bifolio after bifolio? Seems like a strange arrangement to me.

Note that with a few exceptions that could very well be designed for centerfolds, texts and designs do not cross the centerline of bifolios, which to me suggests that these were likely intended to be bound.

The analog Lisa Fagin Davis brought up in her Toronto lecture were Corans used for teaching in some regions of West Africa, allowing the pupils to pass around singular leaves, but such things are almost unheard of anywhere else. She also mentioned that binding bifoliae without assembling them first into quires was impossible, but I am not versed enough in the book production techniques to know why this would be impossible, so for my money, there could have been a first binding of the manuscript without quires. But you probably need to watch her lecture (You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.), the actual research presentation is less than an hour long and there is a bit of questions after that ; the mention of the Western African Corans is around 50min in, and the article she gives as ref is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.