At Genesis 43:28, near-Aleppo adopts this pointed ketiv:
וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽ
The final written vav has a shuruq dot and silluq, without qubuts. This is an individual editorial decision inferred from MAM's somewhat indirect note. Aleppo is not extant here. MAM describes the deficient ketiv and its pointing in prose while displaying the expanded qere; it does not quote this chosen pointed ketiv as a separate complete form.
English summary of MAM's note: The group ב,ש,ש1,ו and printed editions have the deficient ketiv spelling with a shuruq dot alone on the final vav. MAM consequently gives this qere, with no dot on its consonantal vav:
וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֽוּ
MAM reports a different pointed ketiv for Leningrad: the same final written vav bears both qubuts and a shuruq dot. Its quoted form is:
וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוֻּֽ
MAM interprets that pointing as a qere with a dot on the consonantal vav as well as shuruq on the final vav:
וַיִּֽשְׁתַּחֲוּֽוּ
MAM's note at Genesis 43:28. Near-Aleppo follows the first group's described ketiv pointing in this decision; it has no diplomatic Leningrad default.
Ben questions whether the chosen ketiv uniquely favors MAM's undotted consonantal vav over the dotted alternative. His reasoning is that a dagesh or another qere mark may lack a suitable ketiv carrier and be omitted rather than transferred. If that reasoning also applies to shuruq, the ketiv's single dot need not determine which qere pointing underlies it. This is reasoned uncertainty, not a demonstrated historical explanation or a claim that the two qeres are equally likely.
Near-Aleppo retains MAM's current qere unchanged. This individual choice supplies no general rule for dropping a final shuruq and does not revise the frozen inference archive.