What is the significance of holam haser compared to holam malé?

This is a complex question requiring manuscript investigation. A related old post (2004) by Peter Kirby is here and responded to here.

Peter explains that the holam haser (weak) and the holam malé (full) are slight differences in the placement of the dots over a Hebrew letter signifying the vowel 'o'. The problem occurs when one has such a dot over a vav. Here is one of his images.

Codex Leningradensis (1006-7)

Peter claims that "The combination of VAV with Holam Haser is known as Vav Haluma, and is pronounced VO".

Though he says this, I don't think it is true. I tested this in SimHebrew with Psalm 119 and got v's where I would not pronounce them in Hebrew - like עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ ydvotiç which I think should be ydotiç.

Holam malé is Unicode 1465. Holam haser is 1466. There is an official search at Tanach.us but the following stats are based on my own data.

The counts by verse are enough to see the more common usage:

• vav with holam haser occurs in 376 verses
• vav with dagesh and holam haser occurs in 15 verses.
• vav with dagesh and holam male occurs in 0 verses.
• vav with holam male occurs in 16,717 verses.

Psalm 119:6-8, 9-16

Psalms 119 has 29 verses with a holam haser on a vav. All of them occur on two recurring words with some variation in the form of the words, מִצְוֺתֶֽיךָ and עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ.  One of these is a vav that is pronounced, the other has one that isn't pronounced. Neither has a dagesh. So much for the thesis the way the data are coded in the Leningrad Codex. It does not hold.

I suggest that the difference in the two holams is not significant with respect to pronunciation. So what is the rationale for observing these slight differences in placement?

Psalms 119 verses 6 and 14

v az la-abow,

bhbi'ti al-cl-mxvotiç. מִצְוֺתֶֽיךָ

[6 And then I would not be ashamed,

to take note of all your commandments.]

id bdrç ydotiç עֵדְוֺתֶ֥יךָ wwti cyl cl-hon.

[14 By the way of your testimonies I joy as above all value.]