Codex Claromontanus and Romans 1.29 in NA28

My Greek students have just finished a text critical assignment on the variant in Rom 1.29 involving πορνείᾳ πονηρίᾳ πλεονεξίᾳ κακίᾳ κτλ. One of the things I’ve done is compare the NA26 apparatus to the updated form in the NA28 (my NA27 is at the office). I do miss the brevity of the old version, but the new one is certainly easier to follow. What caught my attention was the treatment of Codex Claromontanus (D 06), highlighted below.

Comparison of NA26 and NA28 apparatus

The NA28 made more sense to me, but I still had questions. That led, of course, to checking the image at the BnF website.

Rom 1.29 in Claromontanus; sharpened for clarity

Everything in the NA28 about D now makes sense except one thing. Does D² omit the word κακ(ε)ια? I only see what I assume is an itacistic erasure of an epsilon. So, is the (−D²) simply saying that some part of κακια (namely the original epsilon) is omitted? I assumed that the minus sign meant the whole word was omitted, which it’s clearly not. What I might have expected is something more like (⸉D).