Significant Spaces in P46

I was looking at Kenyon's edition of the text of P46 (1935), as one does, and I noticed that the edited text marks out certain spaces. For the first page of Hebrews the following have a large space:

1. v1: PROFHTAIS (space) EP ESXATOU
2. v2: EN UIW (space) ON EQHKEN
3. v3: TOUS AIWNAS (space) OS WN
4. v5: TWN AGGELWN (space) UIS MOU
5. v6: EIS UN (space) OTAN DE

Looking at the facsimile however (as one does), it becomes apparent that the perception of the editor as to what is significant for punctuation has been at work here, since there are other spaces equal or larger, that are not signalled. So I measured the spaces in this page and then put them in order of width:

1. v6: EIS UN (4.8mm) OTAN DE
2. v1: POLU (3.7mm) MEROS
3. v2: HMEIN (3.3mm) EN UIW
4. v2: EN UIW (3.2mm) ON EQHKEN
5. v1: POLUMEROS (3.1mm) KAI
6. v2: TOUTWN (2.8mm) ELALHSEN
7. v3: TOUS AIWNAS (2.8mm) OS WN
8. v1: PALAI (2.5 mm) O QS
9. v3: DI AUTOU (2.5 mm) KAQARISMON
10. v4: PAR AUTOUS (2.4mm) KEKLHRONOMHKEN
11. v5: TWN AGGELWN (2.2mm) UIS MOU
12. v1: PROFHTAIS (2.1mm) EP ESXATOU
13. v2: KLHRONOMON (2.1mm) PANTWN
    
14. v3: AUTOU (2.0mm) FERWN
    
15. v4: TOSOU (2.0mm) TWN
    

What does this show? I wasn't sure so I looked at the introduction. Here is what Kenyon says:

Pauses in sense are occasionally indicated by slight space-intervals between words. Prof. Sanders has indicated a large number of such intervals, but most of them have, I think, no significance. Some are due to flaws in the papyrus (as at junctions of kollemata), some to the scribe's habit of leaving a slight space after an abbreviation, some seem to be purely accidental or hardly perceptible. I have thought it best to indicate them only when they are plainly intentional and denote a pause in the sense. Only an examination of the facsimile will show exactly what the facts are. They suggest at any rate some perception by the scribe of the sense of what he was writing. (p. xiv)

This is interesting. It suggests that correspondence with what Kenyon thought was 'a pause in the sense' was one critical factor in identifying the significant spaces, which suggests that this is not a particularly objective measure. Of course there is wisdom to be gained from constant and thoughtful exposure to manuscripts and Kenyon's opinions are obviously thoughtful and experienced. But if one wanted to study P46 in order to understand the "perception by the scribe of the sense of what he was writing", one would need to do a lot of careful thinking (and even perhaps some measuring). Indeed, although Kenyon said that "only an examination of the facsimile will show exactly what the facts are", his comment that some spaces are not significant because they are due to flaws in the papyrus would suggest that only an examination of the manuscript itself will show exactly what the facts are.

I think it would be a good study to look at the use of space for 'pauses in sense' in P46, but there would be quite a few method issues to think through.