Maybe, but on the other hand....
Originally Posted by MGVH
Regarding "issues in spelling," such issues, in fact, might make morphological tagging extremely difficult or even misleading. Consider, for one example out of probably thousands, Acts 5:15b, ἵνα ἐρχομένου Πέτρου κἂν ἡ σκιὰ ἐπισκιάσῃ τινὶ αὐτῶν. ἐπισκιάσῃ is the reading of P74 Sinaiticus A D and many others, while B 33 and a few others read ἐπισκιασει. (By the way, the CNTTS apparatus, Acts 5:15 variation unit #42, seems to have this backward, unless I don't know how to read that apparatus, which is quite possible.) Should ἐπισκιασει be tagged future active indicative, or is it a mere spelling variant (itacism) of the aorist active subjunctive? I pulled this example from Robertson, Grammar of the Greek New Testament, pp. 928-929, where there is more discussion.
As to looking for tendencies across MSS in particular readings ... well, that's what the critical apparatuses display, and I'm not sure I see the value of putting resources into even lemma-tagging the MSS in BW in order to allow the diligent user to reinvent this particular wheel. Not that I wouldn't enjoy reinventing it myself! But the lack of tagging may be just BW's way of saving us from our own inclinations.