He believes that Vaticanus was produced in Italy not Egypt
that would account better for the Latinisms, Hort actually said that later !
He destroys the antiquity and authority of Vaticanus. And if Vaticanus has no authority then neither does Sinaiticus
The whole style of his handiwork proclaims a curt and compendious text, weeding out with unsparing hand the right and the wrong alike. Omission is the grand characteristic of the document, exclusion the rule enforced with pitiless uniformity. The editor of the original was evidently a person enamoured of that 'brevity' which is 'the soul of wit.' He seems to have taken a full copy of the New Testament text into his hands, and to have ostracized into ruthless banishment all that did not suit his taste or meet his views. In this respect he bears resemblance to a gentleman mentioned in the correspondence of the Record a little more than a year since, who epitomized the Holy Bible by cutting off every superfluous word and every repetition, so as to reproduce the sacred volume in its essential integrity in a volume of one-sixth of the usual size, yet, of course, stripped of the drapery of idiosyncrasy which marked the individuality of' the sacred writers.
The Reader's Digest Condensed Bible of early years.
And Sinaiticus was the victim of the same philosophy. So rather than conflations in the TR we are dealing with Diminishments in the "Great" manuscripts. Which has always been my personal view on these manuscripts