I am currently in the middle of looking at the Byzantine lexicographic tradition and came across a nice instance where a lexical gloss might be misinterpreted as a textual variant. It is found at 2 Tim 3:17 where NA27 reads in the apparatus for ἄρτιος: τελειος D* ex lat? ¦ υγιης τελειος 104mg (i.e. glossa).
Especially the gloss in 104 is interesting as υγιης, τελειος is the standard wording in the Byzantine lexical tradition to explain ἄρτιος (with some morphological variation), e.g. Suida α 4045 Ἀρτίως: τελείως, ὑγιῶς.
There are a number of possibilities why the gloss of minuscule 104 is cited in NA27:
1) The scribe of 104 misunderstood a lexical gloss for a textual variant,
2) Modern editors misunderstood a lexical gloss for a textual variant (or decided to stay on the safe side and include the gloss because it could possibly be a variant),
3) Minuscule 104 is mentioned here in an attempt to explain the reading of D as deriving from a lexical gloss.
I am somewhat in the dark here.