This Hebrew text primarily follows the WLC, but in 132 cases has been adjusted to instead use one of the other renderings available from the BHS and/or CJB. Or from DSS in one case. This list shows where the differences are between WLC and this text, and indicates the rationale for each of the choices. For verifying the overall count, note that the extended analysis of Psa 68:20 uses two additional lines: (132 x 2)+3+2 = 269 lines.
For each reference, the first rendering shown is from BHS, and where WLC is different, the rendering from WLC is shown on the next line. If BHS and WLC are the same, that rendering is on the first line, with CJB shown on the next line.
With only three exceptions, all issues noted in the marking of phrase structure and word accents were able to be resolved by just a careful selection of the possibilities presented in these three texts - the WLC, BHS, and CJB. One of these is just a minor detail which doesn't affect the phrasing, so has just been left as is - the absence of any marking for verse-final Silluq in Psa 59:5. The other two are at Psa 125:2 and 130:7, where one component of Ole Veyored has been left out, and had to be reconstructed in order to prevent the unexpected joining of two phrases which, in order to make sense, need to remain separated by the main break of the verse.
Gen 18:9 w2 אֵׄלָ֔ׄיׄוׄ 
Gen 18:9 w2 אֵׄלָׄ֔יׄוׄ  Encoding. Switch to BHS ordering, for a more readable position of the accent
Gen 32:24 w5 אֶת־אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ׃  BHS -and- WLC
Gen 32:24 w5 אֶת־אֲשֶׁר־לֽוֹ׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Gen 41:30 w2 שֶׁ֨בַע 
Gen 41:30 w2 שֶׁ֜בַע  Accents. The disjunctive Geresh used here by WLC produces a phrasing that's unlikely to be correct. Replace it with the conjunctive Qadma/Azla shown in BHS and CJB.
Exo 4:10 w16 דַּבֶּרְךָ  BHS -and- WLC
Exo 4:10 w16 דַּבֶּרְךָ֖  Accents. Both BHS and WLC show a broken phrase structure here, with level 1 Athnach coming right after level 3 Tebir. This is because an accent mark between them is missing. CJB adds the missing accent, a level 2 Tiphcha. This fixes it - so go with the CJB rendering.
Exo 28:1 w7 אִתּ֔וֹ  BHS -and- WLC
Exo 28:1 w7 אִתּ֗וֹ  Accents. Both BHS and WLC show a broken phrase structure here, with level 2 Zaqeph coming right after level 4 Geresh. CJB fixes this, replacing level 2 Zaqeph with level 3 Rebia. So go with the CJB rendering.
Lev 26:28 w8 עַל־חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם׃  BHS -and- WLC
Lev 26:28 w8 עַל־חַטֹּֽאתֵיכֶֽם׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering, including both occurrences of Silluq/Meteg shown in the word
Num 10:34 w7 ׆̇ ס 
Num 10:34 w7 ׆ס  Paragraph marks. At "tanach.us" these are displayed with the separation of BHS but without the dot. Remove the dot as in Psa 107:20, following WLC. But add the separation of BHS, in order to achieve the appearance of WLC.
Num 10:36 w8 ׆̇ ס 
Num 10:36 w8 ׆ס  Paragraph marks. At "tanach.us" these are displayed with the separation of BHS but without the dot. Remove the dot as in Psa 107:20, following WLC. But add the separation of BHS, in order to achieve the appearance of WLC.
Num 27:9 w6 לְאֶחָיו׃  BHS -and- WLC
Num 27:9 w6 לְאֶחָֽיו׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Deu 10:15 w13 הַזֶּה׃  BHS -and- WLC
Deu 10:15 w13 הַזֶּֽה׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Deu 12:2 w17 רַעֲנָן׃  BHS -and- WLC
Deu 12:2 w17 רַֽעֲנָֽן׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering, including both occurrences of Silluq/Meteg shown in the word
Deu 23:18 w8 יִשְׂרָאֵל׃  BHS -and- WLC
Deu 23:18 w8 יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Deu 31:25 w4 נֹֽשְׂאֵ֛י 
Deu 31:25 w4 נֹ֥שְׂאֵ֛י  Accents. The BHS is probably the correct reading here, since WLC has put both a conjunctive Mereka and a disjunctive Tebir on the same word. BHS replaces the Mereka of WLC with Meteg, and the CJB concurs with this interpretation. So go with Meteg here. Note that without this correction, both syllables would be marked as having the primary stress, which doesn't make sense. But the correction fixes this. 
Jdg 9:2 w19 כִּֽי־עַצְמֵכֶ֥ם 
Jdg 9:2 w19 כִּֽי־עַצְמֵכֶם  Accents. In WLC this word is missing its accent. BHS and CJB agree in accenting it with Mereka. So add Mereka
Jdg 13:18 w2 לוֹ֙ w9 וְהוּא־פֶֽלִאי׃ 
Jdg 13:18 w2 לּוֹ֙ w9 וְהוּא־פֶ֛לִאי׃  w2 - Dagesh. Keep the WLC rendering; w9 - Accents. WLC has a misplaced level 3 disjunctive Tebir, where the verse-final Silluq would be expected. Both BHS and CJB read it as Silluq - so use that in place of Tebir.
Jdg 19:21 w3 ‏*ויבול **וַיָּ֖בָל 
Jdg 19:21 w3 וַיָּ֖בָול  Vav or no. The WLC rendering seems defective, either missing a vowel (a vowel to follow Vav) or having an extra consonant (the Vav). The Vav is unlikely to be meant as a vowel in this context, since it comes right after a vowel. BHS and CJB go with the alternate form which doesn't have the Vav - and this resolves the issue. So leave out the Vav, as in BHS and CJB.
2Ki 17:13 w9 שֻׁ֝֩‌בוּ 
2Ki 17:13 w9 שֻׁ֝֠בוּ  Accents. BHS has both conjunctive and disjunctive on the same word; WLC and CJB have two level 4 disjunctives, Geresh and Telisha Gadol. James Price reports this unusual situation of two disjunctives to be historically correct, and apparently intentional. BHS and WLC put both accents on the first syllable, while CJB puts one on each syllable. Follow WLC in putting both disjunctives on the same syllable. But they don't display well in WLC, with the two level 4 markings on top of each other so that neither can be clearly read. The reason appears to be that both are prepositive forms, both trying to display just before the first consonant. An adjustment that improves the display, is to change Geresh from the prepositive 59d, to 59c which isn't prepositive, giving us שֻׁ֜֠בוּ. So go with this small adjustment to the WLC. 
2Ki 18:27 w20 אֶת־*שיניהם **מֵֽימֵי **רַגְלֵיהֶ֖ם 
2Ki 18:27 w20 אֶת־*שיניהם **מימֵ֥י **רַגְלֵיהֶ֖ם  Accents. Go with WLC. Where BHS has no accent, WLC provides the missing piece - a conjunctive accent. Vowels. On this same word, WLC may be missing the first vowel. On this CJB and BHS are in agreement, so take the vowel that they use.
1Ch 10:1 w4 וַיָּ֑נָס  BHS -and- WLC
1Ch 10:1 w4 וַיָּ֚נָס  Accents. BHS and WLC have a broken phrase structure here, with Etnachta on both words 3 and 4. The flow of the phrasing shows word 3 to be the correct location for Etnachta - and the CJB follows this. It marks word 4 with Yethib, which fixes the problem - so follow CJB on this.
2Ch 36:14 w6 ‏*למעול־**לִמְעָל־מַ֔עַל 
2Ch 36:14 w6 לִמְעָול־מַ֔עַל  Vav or no. The WLC rendering seems defective, either missing a vowel (a vowel to follow Vav) or having an extra consonant (the Vav). The Vav is unlikely to be meant as a vowel in this context, since it comes right after a vowel. BHS and CJB go with the alternate form which doesn't have the Vav - and this resolves the issue. So leave out the Vav, as in BHS and CJB.
Est 4:4 w1 ‏*ותבואינה **וַ֠תָּבוֹאנָה 
Est 4:4 w1 וַ֠תָּבוֹאינָה  Yod or no. WLC includes Yod, while CJB agrees with BHS on no Yod - so leave out the Yod.
Est 7:8 w9 נֹפֵ֔ל  BHS -and- WLC
Est 7:8 w9 נֹפֵ֗ל  Accents. Zaqeph in BHS and WLC produces a phrase structure that doesn't fit the actual flow of the wording. But CJB uses Rebia here, which fixes the problem - so go with that.
Job 8:6 w4 אָ֥תָּה  BHS -and- WLC
Job 8:6 w4 אָ֥֫תָּה  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing. This is the word which in BHS and WLC is missing a needed disjunctive, to keep it from being conjoined to the following word. CJB doesn't have Ole here either, so it's necessary to figure out where to put it. But in this case it can go in only one place - just before the Yored, on the same syllable.
Job 22:4 w1 הֲ‌ֽ֭מִיִּרְאָ֣תְךָ 
Job 22:4 w1 הֲֽ֭מִיִּרְאָ֣תְךָ  Meteg. At "tanach.us" this word is displayed just like BHS - so switch to the BHS ordering here
Job 22:21 w2,3 עִמּ֑וֹ וּשְׁלם  BHS -and- WLC
Job 22:21 w2,3 עִמּ֑וֹ וּשְׁלָ֑ם  Accents. In both BHS and WLC we're able to see two issues here. One is that the second word (word 3 of the verse) deviates from the normal pattern, of every word having at least one accent marking. This word has none - with the likely explanation being that its accent mark was accidentally lost along the way. The second issue is that the flow of the text points to the main break of the verse belonging here on this word that's missing its accent. There don't seem to be any alternative interpretations - with every English translation at Biblegateway.com showing a phrase structure consistent with having word 3 marked as the main break of the verse. It's clear enough then that the main break of the verse does indeed belong here on this word that's lost its marking. James Price also acknowledges these defective markings of Job 22:21. And looking at CJB to see how they've handled this, we find that this is how they have resolved it. They've marked word 3 with Etnachta. They've also added a missing vowel marking to the word. We'll go ahead and adopt this as well, since the adjustment was likely done by someone who knows the language. This vowel isn't often found at this position in forms of this word - but a pretty close match is found in Job 9:4, in the word וַיִּשְׁלָֽם vay·yish'lam - translated there as meaning "to remain unharmed" or "to prosper." Now returning to the repair of the accents - this needs to be more complete than what we see in CJB. If Etnachta belongs on word 3, then we can't also have it on word 2. So maybe a fuller picture of what happened here, is that both of these words had lost their accents, and as an attempted repair, Etnachta was put back in - but without enough understanding of the flow of the text to know for sure which of these two words to put it on. Now, just repositioning Etnachta from word 2 to word 3 would still leave an issue - that now word 2 would be left unmarked. So assuming that at least the position in word 2 of Etnachta was correctly chosen, we'll replace that Etnachta with Munach, the conjunctive accent which is found in similiar positions in the surrounding verses. The pair of words now becomes - עִמּ֣וֹ וּשְׁלָ֑ם
Job 24:5 w1-3 הֵ֤ן פְּרָאִ֨ים ׀ בַּֽמִּדְבָּ֗ר  BHS -and- WLC
Job 24:5 w1-3 הֵ֤ן פְּרָאִ֨ים ׀ בַּֽמִּדְבָּ֗ר  Accents. No change being made to the accent markings, but just to the interpretation of Legarmeh. Here it seems to require being interpreted as the conjunctive Paseq rather than a disjunctive - so adding #conj after it to force this interpretation.
Job 24:9 w1 יִ֭גְזְלוּ  BHS -and- WLC
Job 24:9 w1 יִגְזְלוּ  Accents. The disjunctive Dechi found in BHS and WLC seems out of place here. CJB doesn't have this, but has a problem of its own - that this word has been given no accent marking at all. Try a third option - that the disjunctive Dechi just needs to be shifted a bit to the left making it the conjunctive Tarcha, like this: יִ֖גְזְלוּ  Now, this introduces another problem similar to Job 34:5. It puts a phrase break after the second word - and this is reasonable - except that the mechanism by which it's accomplished is by VRevMug - which is meant for the end of the verse just before Silluq, not here at the beginning before Etnachta. So block this VRevMug in the same way as in Job 34:5, by placing #nvr in the text, after the second word.
Job 29:25 w3,4 וְאֵשֵׁ֪ב רֹ֥אשׁ  BHS -and- WLC
Job 29:25 w3,4 וְאֵשֵׁ֪ב רֹ֥֫אשׁ  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing. This is the phrase which in BHS and WLC are missing a needed disjunctive, to keep it from being conjoined to the following phrase. CJB doesn't have Ole here either, so it's necessary to figure out where to put it. If it belongs on this same word, it goes just before the Yored, on the same syllable - so that's where I've put it. Since it's a 2-word phrase it could also potentially go on the preceding word. I don't know which way is correct for this case.
Job 30:16 w5 יֹ֖אחֲז֣וּנִי 
Job 30:16 w5 יֹ֭אחֲז֣וּנִי  Accents. 596 Tarcha - conj, to 5ad Dechi - disj level 3. The WLC rendering blocks a phrase break - not permitting virtual Rebia Mugrash to be recognized. Both CJB and BHS use the conjunctive Tarcha, the rendering which gives rise to the desired phrase break. So adjust the WLC rendering to also use this accent. On two other accent details in this word, the CJB differs from the other two - in its addition of Meteg, and in where it places the conjunctive Munach. There may be good reason for these - but not yet grasping these details, and since BHS and WLC concur in not including them - for now just make that one adjustment to the WLC rather than fully copying the CJB rendering.
Job 34:5 w1 כִּֽי־אָ֭מַר  BHS -and- WLC
Job 34:5 w1 כִּֽי־אָ֖מַר  Accents. An issue with the phrasing of this verse was partially resolved by shifting the accent on the first word to the left - making it the conjunctive Tarcha in place of the disjunctive Dechi, as in the CJB. This allows the phrasing "for Job says / I am righteous" in place of "for he says / Job, I am righteous". The analysis seems questionable because it makes use of "VRevMug", putting it just before "Etnachta", which I don't think I've seen before. VRevMug normally seems to belong to Silluq rather than Etnachta segments. And then another matter comes up, that VRevMug here results in a skewed phrasing because it's superseding Etnachta as the main break of the verse - which only Ole Veyored can do. So in the end the VRevMug needs to be blocked by placing #nvr in the text - leaving "for Job says, I am righteous" all as one long conjoined phrase. Complicated - but after doing away with two unwanted breaks, we end up with a phrasing that can stand as a solid rendering.
Job 34:20 w3,4 וַחֲצ֪וֹת לָ֥יְלָה  BHS -and- WLC
Job 34:20 w3,4 וַחֲצ֪וֹת לָ֥֫יְלָה  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing. This is the phrase which in BHS and WLC is missing a needed disjunctive, to keep it from being conjoined to the following word. CJB does have Ole here, on the second word of the phrase (counting from right to left) - but just not displaying correctly because it's on the wrong side of the consonant, like this -  ֫לָ֥יְלָה So just fix this glitch, and then we can follow the CJB.
Job 35:9 w1 מֵ֭רֹב  BHS -and- WLC
Job 35:9 w1 מֵ֖רֹב  Accents. I'm not seeing this one mentioned by James Price. But it involves two phrase breaks that aren't making sense to me. In the first half of the verse we have "Because of the multitude # of oppressions # they cry out". The semantics as I'm understanding it would need to conjoin the first two words so that together they express the reason for the "crying out" of the third word. But between the first two words, in BHS and WLC we have the disjunctive Dechi preventing this conjoining. The CJB doesn't have Dechi here, instead just leaving this word unmarked for accent. If we assume that the mark should be there, but its horizontal position has just been misread, we can adjust this by shifting the accent on the first word to the left - making it the conjunctive Tarcha in place of the disjunctive Dechi. But this then brings about another issue, as in Job 34:5. We now get a break between the second and third words, which seems right semantically - but with this break being marked by VRevMug, which doesn't belong in this position, before Etnachta. So as in Job 34:5, this wrong placement of VRevMug needs to be blocked by placing #nvr in the text. Then in the second half of the verse we have "they cry out for help # because of the arm # of the mighty". The semantics as I'm understanding it would need to conjoin the second two words so that together they express the reason for the "crying out" of the first word. Here again we get VRevMug, and this time in an acceptable position, in the Silluq segment - but it wants to conjoin the first two words, rather than the second two as suggested by the semantics. So again an #nvr is needed in the text to block the placement of VRevMug here. In the end we're left with the only legitimate phrase break being at Etnachta.
Job 37:12 w4 בְּתַחְבּוּלֹתָ֣יו  BHS -and- WLC
Job 37:12 w4 בְּ֫תַחְבּוּלֹתָ֥יו  Accents. Something is missing here, and this time CJB doesn't offer a resolution. Price doesn't mention this case either. For the semantics to make sense, the main break of the verse needs to be just after this word - and this is what we would have if this word were marked by Ole VeYored. This is one of those words where there's uncertainty about the text, with the BHS showing two possible renderings. So whatever corruption of the text brought about this uncertainty - is it possible that the accent markings were also lost in the process? Assuming this to be the case, I've added back in the markings that seem to be missing - the missing Ole, along with changing Munach to the Merkha required for Ole VeYored.  
Job 38:12 w4 ‏*ידעתה *שחר **יִדַּ֖עְתָּ **הַשַּׁ֣חַר 
Job 38:12 w4 ‏*ידעתה *שחר **יִדַּ֖עְתָּה **הַשַּׁ֣חַר  Cons He. Both BHS and CJB leave this out - so make this adjustment as well to the WLC
Job 39:11 w1 הֲ‌ֽתִבְטַח־בּ֭וֹ 
Job 39:11 w1 הֲֽתִבְטַח־בּ֭וֹ  Meteg. At "tanach.us" this word is displayed just like BHS - so switch to the BHS ordering here
Job 40:2 w1 הֲ֭רֹב  BHS -and- WLC
Job 40:2 w1 הֲ֖רֹב  Accents. The accent found on this word in BHS and WLC is disjunctive, and gives us this phrasing - "Shall he contend / with the Almighty a faultfinder". But if I'm correctly understanding the meaning components of each word, the phrasing actually should be "Shall he contend with the Almighty / a faultfinder". If the horizontal position of the accent wasn't correctly understood, it's possible that it really wasn't the disjunctive Dechi, but the conjunctive Tarcha that was meant here - so I've made that adjustment. The CJB differs from both of these, just leaving this word without any accent marking - which would have the same effect, of now allowing the first two words to be conjoined, which seems to be the more correct phrasing. But this brings about another issue, as in Job 34:5 and 35:9. We now get a break between the second and third words, which seems right semantically - but with this break being marked by VRevMug, which doesn't belong in this position, before Etnachta. So as in Job 34:5 and 35:9, this wrong placement of VRevMug is blocked by placing #nvr in the text. 
Psa 27:13 w1 לׅׄוּלֵׅ֗ׄאׅׄ 
Psa 27:13 w1 לׅׄוּלֵׅׄ֗אׅׄ  Encoding. Switch to BHS ordering, for a more readable position of Rebia
Psa 30:12 w3,4 לְמָח֪וֹל לִ֥י  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 30:12 w3,4 לְמָח֪וֹל לִ֥֫י  Accents. Ole is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, thus providing Ole Veyored as the primary phrase break. Without this, two phrases are conjoined which clearly shouldn't have to be seen as just a single phrase; and the role of primary break falls on Etnachta, between two phrases which would be better understood as a pair of most closely-linked phrases. CJB does have Ole here, on the second word of the phrase (counting from right to left) - but just not displaying correctly because it's on the wrong side of the consonant, like this -  ֫לָ֥יְלָה So just fix this glitch, then we can follow the CJB, and this will fix those phrasing issues. -- Note: The work of James Price confirms this as a known case of defective Ole Veyored.
Psa 31:20 w10 אָדָם׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 31:20 w10 אָדָֽם׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 32:2 w10 רְמִיָּה׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 32:2 w10 רְמִיָּֽה׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 37:31 w6 אֲשֻׁרָיו׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 37:31 w6 אֲשֻׁרָֽיו׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 37:32 w5 לַהֲמִיתוֹ׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 37:32 w5 לַֽהֲמִיתֽוֹ׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering, including both occurrences of Silluq/Meteg shown in the word
Psa 38:20 w1,2 וְֽ֭אֹיְבַי חַיִּ֣ים  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 38:20 w1,2 וְֽאֹיְבַי חִ֭נָּם  Consonants. With the word "life", none of the English translations are able to fully make sense of this verse. The word "without cause" from DSS appears more likely to be the original text. Use this, along with the vowel and accent markings that the Masoretes would likely have provided if they had known of this correction.
Psa 40:16 w6 הֶאָ֥ח ׀ 
Psa 40:16 w6 הֶ֘אָ֥ח ׀  Accents. BHS is just 5a5 Mereka. WLC adds 598 Sinnorit, making it the level 2 disjunctive Sinnorit Mereka. It seems to make the most sense for the last two words of this verse "Aha, aha!" to be conjoined rather than separated by a disjunctive. And CJB agrees with BHS in not adding Sinnorit. So take out the Sinnorit
Psa 42:3 w4,5 לְאֵ֪ל חָ֥י  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 42:3 w4,5 לְאֵ֪ל֫ חָ֥י  Accents. Ole is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, thus providing Ole Veyored as the primary phrase break. Without this, two phrases are conjoined which don't make sense together as just a single phrase. Confirmed by James Price as a known case of defective Ole Veyored. Just follow CJB on this. 
Psa 50:21 w5 הֱ‌ֽיוֹת־אֶֽהְיֶ֥ה 
Psa 50:21 w5 הֱֽיוֹת־אֶֽהְיֶ֥ה  Meteg. At "tanach.us" this word is displayed just like BHS - so switch to the BHS ordering here. I hadn't noticed this before - not sure if this is a special case or if it has been happening all along for such cases - but the codes for Meteg and the vowel are already in the desired order. To get them to -display- this way isn't a matter of changing their order, but of putting a code between them which apparently blocks their reordering by the font. This is the u200c zero width non-joiner. Interestingly, the font is capable of placing Meteg not only to the left or to the right of the vowel, but also between the two pieces of this combined vowel. The possible renderings are: vowel+meteg הֱֽיוֹת,  vowel+200c+meteg הֱ‌ֽיוֹת,  meteg+vowel הֱֽיוֹת. This word also includes a simpler case of Meteg, where it's next to just an ordinary vowel rather than a combined vowel. In this case, both ordering possibilities are achieved without need for u200c. These are: vowel+meteg אֶֽ,  meteg+vowel אֶֽ.  Here the ordering is just a straightforward mapping from the order of the codes - with whatever comes first displaying to the left, and whatever follows it displaying to its right.
Psa 55:20 w6 סֶ֥לָה  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 55:20 w6 סֶ֥֫לָה  Accents. Ole is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, thus providing Ole Veyored as the primary phrase break. Without this, we get an unexpected conjoining of Selah to the following phrase. Confirmed by James Price as a known case of defective Ole Veyored - so just follow CJB here. 
Psa 59:5 w6 וּרְאֵה׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 59:5 w6 וּרְאֵה׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. Same problem in CJB - so this one has to stand unresolved for now.
Psa 60:13 w6 אָדָם׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 60:13 w6 אָדָֽם׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 68:20 w3,4 י֤וֹם ׀ י֥וֹם  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 68:20 w3,4 י֤וֹם ׀ י֥֫וֹם  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing. He doesn't show the exact location for the missing Ole, and it could conceivably be on either of these two words. But this is a possible placement - and it does place the phrase break in the same place shown by Price on page 184 of "The Syntax of Masoretic Accents in the Hebrew Bible". CJB puts Ole Veyored at a different point in the verse, one phrase later. CJB may actually be the better rendering - but for now I've gone with Price's approach, just because it requires the fewest adjustments to the WLC. The only text change is the one shown above - adding the missing Ole. Then two manual adjustments are applied to the interpretation of the markings - using #conj to tell it to take the Legarmeh shown here as just a conjunctive Paseq rather than a disjunctive - and using #vr to specify where to put VRevMug (just following Price on this). This #vr tells the system that there -is- a VRevMug here, without needing to first figure out and explain why. If additional such cases accumulate, maybe it will be worth digging in and writing a rule - but this ad hoc approach may be good enough, if this case ends up being just a one-time thing. 
Psa 68:20  Accents. Price's reconstruction of Ole Veyored (above) seems to misplace the main break of the verse. It's about the phrase "day by day" or "daily", and the Lord's "bearing our burdens" or "bearing us up". The two seem to belong together as a single clause, saying something like "day by day he carries our burden" - and all the English translations I'm seeing except one (WYC) have taken this meaning from it. But Price's reconstruction of Ole Veyored puts these two phrases on opposite sides of the main verse break, so that the phrase "day by day" no longer really relates directly to what the text is saying that he does for us day by day. So, do we go with that other option seen in CJB? It involves changing the conjunctive marker after "day by day" to Revia, then for the Revia that was already in the verse - changing that one to Ole Veyored, and then just as in Price's analysis, polishing it up with a VRevMug. It results in a fairly decent phrase structure, and it does keep together the part which says "day by day he carries our burden." But it requires enough adjustments to feel unlikely that it's really a faithful reconstruction of whatever was originally there. And then, it also has its own phrasing issue. The parts which say "he carries our burden", and "the God of our salvation" - again, these look just like two halves of a clause, meant to be closest companions, but the phrasing has now put -these- on opposite sides of the main verse break.
Psa 68:20  Accents. So what do we do with that? How can we satisfy both of these needs for phrases to be side by side - and where then can the main verse break go? Well - first suspend the assumption that every verse has to -have- a main verse break. Not all do. And then look and see what we get from just the markings as passed down to us in the BHS/WLC text... It works. Both of these phrase pairs really are closely connected to each other. We do still need those two pieces of fine tuning - using #conj to specify that Paseq between "day by day" is just a conjoiner - and using #vr to mark where the VRevMug segment goes. But by not attempting the construction of a main verse break, the issues noted here have all been resolved. So BHS/WLC had it right all along - and for both Price and CJB, the issues came from an attempt to reconstruct an Ole Veyored where there never was one.
Psa 71:4 w7 וְחוֹמֵץ׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 71:4 w7 וְחוֹמֵֽץ׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 74:17 w8 יְצַרְתָּם׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 74:17 w8 יְצַרְתָּֽם׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 78:21 w4 וַֽיִּתְעַבָּ֥ר  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 78:21 w4 וַֽיִּתְעַבָּ֥֫ר  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing - and this is what I find in BHS and WLC. But CJB doesn't have it either, so I've had to guess at the placement of Ole. It has to be in a phrase which already has Yored, and there are three of these. But it's clear that this is the right phrase, since without Ole it's conjoined to the following phrase, and this needs to be avoided in order to make good sense of the verse. And then there's just one word in this phrase, so it's clear also that this is the right word. As for where in the word Ole belongs, looking at several cases which have Ole and Yored on the same word, I'm seeing them also on the same syllable, placed above and below the same consonant. Maybe this is how it always works? I'll go ahead and do it that way here, putting them on the same consonant. 
Psa 78:41 w6 הִתְווּ׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 78:41 w6 הִתְוֽוּ׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 86:2 w3-5 כִּֽי־חָסִ֪יד֫ אָ֥נִי
Psa 86:2 w3-5 כִּֽי־חָסִ֪יד אָ֥נִי  Accents. Not sure how this happened, but the initial comparison didn't catch this difference. It's an important one. The WLC is missing Ole on the third/fourth word, which is included in both BHS and CJB. This breaks the tree structure for WLC - so add the missing Ole. This Ole along with Mereka on the following word then becomes Ole Veyored. Note that it's not Ole, but Mereka, which marks the last word of the phrase. -- Note: This is confirmed by the work of James Price as a known case of defective Ole Veyored.
Psa 89:7 w9 אֵלִים׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 89:7 w9 אֵלִֽים׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 89:41 w5 מְחִתָּה׃  BHS -and- WLC
Psa 89:41 w5 מְחִתָּֽה׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Psa 98:3 w3 וֶֽאֱ‌ֽמוּנָתוֹ֮ 
Psa 98:3 w3 וֶֽאֱֽמוּנָתוֹ֮  Meteg. At "tanach.us" this word is displayed just like BHS - so switch to the BHS ordering here. Again, BHS and WLC already use the same order for coding of vowel+meteg; but to display in the expected way, WLC needs to follow BHS in adding u200c between them
Psa 106:39 w3 וַ֝יִּזְ֗נוּ 
Psa 106:39 w3 וַ֝יִּזְנוּ֗  Word stress. The difference here has to do with where the stress of the word really belongs. WLC marks the last syllable. BHS and CJB agree on marking the next to last syllable. So go with BHS and CJB. Note that the transliteration system is also reading the word-initial Geresh as a primary stress - which in this case is not correct. Geresh does sometimes mark primary stress. But the transliteration needs to be refined to distinguish between when it does and doesn't.
Psa 109:16 w5,6 עֲשׂ֪וֹת חָ֥סֶד   BHS -and- WLC
Psa 109:16 w5,6 עֲשׂ֪וֹת֫ חָ֥סֶד  Accents. Ole is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, thus providing Ole Veyored as the primary phrase break. Without this, two phrases are conjoined which clearly shouldn't have to be seen as just a single phrase, and the verse is left with no primary break because there's no Etnachta. Adding in the Ole from CJB fixes it. -- Note: This case of defective Ole Veyored is not noted in the work of James Price.
Psa 109:26 w4 ה֭וֹשִׁיעֵ֣נִי   BHS -and- WLC
Psa 109:26 w4 ה֖וֹשִׁיעֵ֣נִי   Accents. 5ad Dechi - disjunctive level 3, to 596 Tarcha. By itself Tarcha would be just a conjunctive - but together with Munach they mark this word as virtual Rebia Mugrash, a level 2 disjunctive. The change is just a matter of the exact horizontal position of the marking, which can be easily misread if the reading hasn't been accompanied by an understanding of how the markings function. Reading the first accent as a level 3 disjunctive as recorded in the BHS and WLC was kind of working - but it created a one of a kind situation, where a level 3 Dechi had to be reinterpreted as level 2 in order to successfully build the phrase structure. A similar thing happens fairly regularly for Revi'i - 169 times in the Psalms - so for Revi'i this kind of thing is a known and accepted feature. But Dechi isn't found to work this way anywhere else - which made this case stand out as worthy of a closer look. It's found that unlike BHS and WLC, the CJB reads it as a 596 Tarcha. This then fixes the anomaly of needing to reinterpret a level 3 Dechi as level 2 - since virtual Rebia Mugrash is already a level 2 disjunctive. Support for this reading: 1) This is how the CJB has read it. 2) With this reading we no longer have any cases of Dechi needing to be reinterpreted as level 2.  3) The following verse, verse 27, affirms this sequence of markings, since the adjustment gives verse 26 the exact same sequence. 4) This particular marking of the word "ho·shiʿe·ni" is affirmed as valid by Psa 31:17, in which the very same marking of the word occurs.
Psa 118:27 w3,4 וַיָּ֪אֶר לָ֥נוּ   BHS -and- WLC
Psa 118:27 w3,4 וַיָּ֪אֶר לָ֥֫נוּ  Accents. Ole is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, thus providing Ole Veyored as the primary phrase break. Without this, two phrases are conjoined which clearly shouldn't have to be seen as just a single phrase; and the role of primary break falls on Etnachta, which semantically isn't a primary break here - serving to conjoin two pieces of the clause following the primary break. Adding in the Ole from CJB fixes these issues. -- Note: This is confirmed by the work of James Price as a known case of defective Ole Veyored.
Psa 124:4 w4 נַ֝֗חְלָה 
Psa 124:4 w4 נַ֗֜חְלָה  Accents. Changing 59d Geresh to 59c Geresh, and reversing its order with respect to Rebia. With this change the sequence is no longer recognized as Rebia Mugrash - so go with the BHS rendering. On the relative order of Geresh with Rebia, CJB is in agreement with this. On whether to use 59c - Geresh, or 59d - Geresh Muqdam, CJB agrees instead with the WLC, using 59c. It seems that BHS, though in the minority, has likely made the best choice on this detail - that 59d, the prepositive form, is the one that's really meant for this context. It may be that a distinction between the two forms of Geresh will provide the needed transliteration refinement mentioned at 106:39 - with the ordinary 59c Geresh marking primary stress, while the prepositive 59d Geresh Muqdam does not.
Psa 125:2 w3,4 סָבִ֪יב לָ֥הּ  BHS -and- WLC -and- CJB
Psa 125:2 w3,4 סָבִ֪יב לָ֥֫הּ  Accents. On this one I have to go out on a limb and propose a rendering shown by none of the three versions I have access to. But it's similar to the cases of Psa 30:12 and 118:27, where the Ole of Ole Veyored was missing in BHS and WLC. This time it's missing from all three. The evidence that it -should- be there rather than just the conjunctive Merkha, is that without it, two phrases are conjoined which don't fit well together at all, actually being the end of one clause conjoined to the beginning of another. The work of James Price confirms this as a known case of defective Ole Veyored. Adding in Ole as in Psa 30:12 and 118:27 fixes it nicely. But note that since it's a 2-word phrase it could also potentially go on the preceding word. I don't know which way is correct for this case.
Psa 126:6 w6 בֹּֽא־יָב֥וֹא 
Psa 126:6 w6 בֹּֽ֬א־יָב֥וֹא  Accents. WLC adds the conjunctive Illuy. It's not needed along with Maqqeph, now being doubly marked to conjoin with the following word, but does no harm to the phrase structure. As for marking of primary stress - is the first syllable really meant to have a primary stress as suggested by Illuy? The CJB agrees with BHS in -not- adding Illuy - so until this question can be answered, take Illuy back out.
Psa 130:7 w3,4 אֶל־יְה֫וָה  BHS -and- WLC -and- CJB
Psa 130:7 w3,4 אֶל־יְה֫וָ֥ה  Accents. For the second time now, I need to propose a rendering shown by none of the three versions I have access to. As in 125:2 it's about Ole Veyored, but this time it's Merkha rather than Ole that's missing. Without Merkha on word 3, Ole ends up working instead with the Merkha of word 4, thus repositioning the main break one phrase forward. The problem with this - the evidence that it's an error - is similar to the case of 125:2 - that we end up with two phrases conjoined which clearly don't belong together, presenting "in the LORD, for with the LORD" as just a single phrase. This is fixed by including Merkha on both occurrences of "LORD" rather than only the second. The problem was likely created because someone assumed that having Merkha on both was just an accidental duplication - and leaving out the first one seemed likely to be correct, since this left just one accent mark on each - which is what we always see in the prose system. -- Note: This is confirmed by the work of James Price as a known case of defective Ole Veyored.
Pro 8:28 w6 תְּהוֹם׃  BHS -and- WLC
Pro 8:28 w6 תְּהֽוֹם׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Pro 15:21 w6 יְיַשֶּׁר־לָֽכֶת׃ 
Pro 15:21 w6 יְיַשֶׁר־לָֽכֶת׃  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in including Dagesh, so go with that
Pro 20:24 w1 מֵיְהוָ֥ה 
Pro 20:24 w1 מֵיהוָ֥ה  Vowels. CJB agrees with BHS in including the sheva, so add that to WLC
Pro 21:20 w1-2 אוֹצָ֤ר ׀ נֶחְמָ֣ד 
Pro 21:20 w1-2 אוֹצָ֤ר נֶחְמָ֣ד  Accents. The BHS and WLC place Legarmeh between these two words - which the general rules then interpret as disjunctive. But from the semantics of the phrases we see that these two words need to be conjoined. The CJB does not have Legarmeh here - so following that, by just removing Legarmeh, would be one way to provide the needed conjoining. The alternative is to keep Legarmeh, but add a manual adjustment to the interpretation of the markings, using #conj to tell it to take this instance of Legarmeh as just a conjunctive Paseq rather than a disjunctive. The second of these options is what is currently being used.
Pro 24:15 w6 רִבְצֽוֹ׃ 
Pro 24:15 w6 רִבְצוֹ׃  Meteg. Missing here in the WLC. It's unexpected for the end of a verse not to be marked by Meteg, though it does no damage to the phrase structure, since Soph Pasuq is still there to clearly mark the end of the verse. As for transliteration, without Meteg we're left with no indication of where the primary stress of the word falls. BHS and CJB agree on both including Meteg, and on which syllable it marks - so adjust WLC to follow that
Pro 24:24 w3,4 צַדִּ֪יק אָ֥תָּה  BHS -and- WLC
Pro 24:24 w3,4 צַדִּ֪יק אָ֥֫תָּה  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing. This is the phrase which in BHS and WLC is missing a needed disjunctive, to keep it from being conjoined to the following phrase. CJB doesn't have Ole here either, so it's necessary to figure out where to put it. If it belongs on this same word, it goes just before the Yored, on the same syllable - so that's where I've put it. Since it's a 2-word phrase it could also potentially go on the preceding word. I don't know which way is correct for this case.
Pro 28:17 w3 בְּדַם־נָ֑פֶשׁ 
Pro 28:17 w3 בְּדַם־נָפֶשׁ  Accents. WLC is missing an Atnach here, which significantly damages the phrase structure. BHS and CJB agree that it should be there, so follow that 
Pro 30:15 w5 הַ֥ב  BHS -and- WLC
Pro 30:15 w5 הַ֥֫ב  Accents. James Price lists this verse as having a known case of defective Ole Veyored, with Ole missing. This is the word which in BHS and WLC is missing a needed disjunctive, to keep it from being conjoined to the following word. CJB doesn't have Ole here either, so it's necessary to figure out where to put it. But in this case it can go in only one place - just before the Yored, on the same syllable.
Pro 31:28 w5 וַֽיְהַֽלְלָֽהּ׃ 
Pro 31:28 w5 וַֽיְהַֽלְלָהּ׃  Meteg. It seems that this one could go either way. Having either 2 or 3 Metegs in this word, there's certainly no shortage this time. The question seems to be just whether the last or next to last syllable is to take the word stress, with BHS and CJB choosing the former, and WLC choosing the latter. Since CJB agrees with BHS, go with that
Ecc 2:22 w6 לִבּ֑וֹ 
Ecc 2:22 w6 לִבּ֑ו  Vowels. Without the vowel the word isn't quite pronounceable. And CJB agrees with BHS in including the vowel - so adjust WLC to follow that
Ecc 10:10 w9 הַכְשֵׁ֖יר 
Ecc 10:10 w9 ‏*הכשיר **הַכְשֵׁ֖ר  Yod or no. CJB and BHS agree on including the Yod, so adjust WLC to follow them
Isa 9:6 w1 ‏*למרבה **לְמַרְבֵּ֨ה 
Isa 9:6 w1 ‏*לם*רבה **לְמַרְבֵּ֨ה  Cons word final. Go with WLC, but remove the mid-word asterisk, letting the variant form match what's shown in CJB
Isa 13:7 w6 יִמָּֽס׃ 
Isa 13:7 w6 יִמָּס׃  Meteg. The last word of a verse is normally marked by Meteg, and the CJB and BHS agree on including Meteg. So follow them rather than WLC
Isa 14:27 w8 וּמִ֥י 
Isa 14:27 w8 וּֽמִ֥י  Meteg. CJB agrees with BHS on not including Meteg here. So follow them rather than WLC 
Isa 30:15 w12 תִּֽהְיֶ֖ה 
Isa 30:15 w12 תִּהְיֶ֖ה  Meteg. CJB agrees with BHS on including Meteg here. So add it as well to WLC
Isa 49:23 w18 קֹוָֽי׃ 
Isa 49:23 w18 קוָֹֽי׃  Vowels. The WLC is trying to put both "o" and "a" on the same consonant, causing an issue in transliteration and pronunciation. CJB does the same. BHS resolves it, applying the "o" to the previous consonant - so go with this
Isa 48:6 w1 שָׁמַ֤עְתָּֽ w7 הִשְׁמַעְתִּ֤יךָ  BHS -and- WLC
Isa 48:6 w1 שָׁמַ֚עְתָּ w7 הִשְׁמַעְתִּ֚יךָ  Accents. For BHS and WLC, both of these words show a defective phrase structure as a result of the disjunctive Yetiv/Yethib having been mistaken for the conjunctive Mahpak. Follow the CJB here by taking them both as the disjunctive Yetiv/Yethib. Word 1 also differs by the presence of Meteg in BHS and WLC. I don't have any clear reason to choose for or against this, but have left this just as found in BHS and WLC. So my spelling of word 1 only partially follows the CJB.
Isa 61:7 w13 תִּהְיֶ֥ה 
Isa 61:7 w13 תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה  Meteg. CJB and BHS agree on not including it, so go with them
Jer 2:31 w5 הֲמִדְבָּ֤ר w8 אִ֛ם  BHS -and- WLC
Jer 2:31 w5 הֲמִדְבָּ֚ר w8 אִם  Accents. For BHS and WLC, the level 3 Tebir on word 8 is an issue, because the following Tiphcha is on the same word as the final level 1 Athnach. The phrase marking is defective, actually skipping a level here, since Tiphcha on the same word as Silluq or Athnach doesn't really serve as a level 2 disjunctive. It's just standing in place of Meteg as a secondary accent (James Price p 60). The CJB rendering repairs the defective phrase marking by omitting the accent on w8. At the same time it improves on the arrangement of the preceding phrases by reading the w5 accent as a level 3 Yethib rather than a conjunctive Mahpak. So go with CJB on both of these details.
Jer 5:7 w3 ‏*אסלוח־**אֶֽסְלַֽח־לָ֔ךְ 
Jer 5:7 w3 ‏*אסלוח־ **אֶֽסְלַֽח־לָ֔ךְ  Variant markup. The extra space in the WLC rendering shouldn't be there - so take it out
Jer 15:18 w6 אֲנוּשָׁ֑ה֙  BHS, WLC, CJB
Jer 15:18 w6 אֲנוּשָׁ֑ה  Accents. This word is doubly marked with both level 3 Pashta and level 1 Athnach, producing a broken phrase structure. The easy fix is to take Pashta to have been accidentally copied from the following word, and just remove this extra Pashta, leaving w6 with just Athnach. So that's what has been done here. The resulting phrasing seems questionable at first, with the glossing suggesting that Athnach should fall 2 phrases later than this. But revisiting the glossing, we see that the more accurate rendering of those 2 phrases is simply "it refuses to be healed" rather than a dependent clause attached to what precedes it, "which refuses to be healed". So fixing the phrase marking here ends up leading us to a more accurate glossing as well. 
Jer 27:13 w7 וּבַדָּ֑בֶר֙  BHS, WLC, CJB
Jer 27:13 w7 וּבַדָּ֑בֶר  Accents. This word is doubly marked with both level 3 Pashta and level 1 Athnach, producing a broken phrase structure. Pashta was likely accidentally copied from the following word - so an easy solution is to just remove this extra Pashta, leaving w7 with just Athnach. Go with this. The resulting phrase structure is well formed, suggesting this to be the correct fix.
Jer 27:20 w7 אֶת־*יכוניה **יְכָנְיָ֨ה 
Jer 27:20 w7 אֶת־יְכָונְיָ֨ה  Vav or no. With the Vav it's not a normal syllable structure. BHS and CJB agree on leaving it out, so go with that
Jer 28:2 w7 שָׁבַ֞רְתִּי  BHS -and- WLC
Jer 28:2 w7 שָׁבַ֕רְתִּי  Accents. The level 4 Garshaim used here in BHS and WLC doesn't produce a valid phrase structure, because it skips a level, being followed by level 2 Tiphcha. In the poetic system it is normal to skip levels like this, with the phrasing being interpreted just as if the 4 were a 3. So one solution might be to make an exception here and interpret this as if it were the poetic system. Looking at the three phrases "I will break | the yoke | of the king of Babylon", by this interpretation the first two would be taken as most closely-linked, with the third then linking to that first pair of phrases. But the CJB offers a better solution, replacing Garshaim with the level 2 Zaqeph Gadol. This marking produces a normal narrative phrase structure, not requiring any special exception. And by this marking the -last- two of the three phrases are most closely-linked - which is the more natural phrasing, since what "I will break" is indeed the whole phrase "the yoke of the king of Babylon". So go with the CJB rendering.
Jer 36:11 w1 וַ֠יִּשְׁמַ֗ע  BHS -and- WLC
Jer 36:11 w1 וַ֠יִּשְׁמַ֠ע  Accents. BHS and WLC have two disjunctive accents on this word - level 3 Rebia, and level 4 Telisha Gadol. CJB changes this to a doubly marked Telisha Gadol, which has two details in its favor. 1) This is a normal thing for a prepositive, to include a second occurrence which is then able to mark the primary word stress. So the accent marking is no longer an anomaly. 2) This changes the controlling disjunctive on word 1 from a level 3 to a level 4, which puts the first downstep between the first two phrases, marking those two phrases as most closely linked, which is a good match for the wording of the verse. So go with the CJB rendering here.
Jer 48:12 w2 הִנֵּ֖ה־יָמִ֤ים  BHS -and- WLC
Jer 48:12 w2 הִנֵּֽה־יָמִ֚ים  Accents. BHS and WLC have Tiphcha in an unexpected place here where, since the word is tied to the next one by Maqqeph, it's not able to actually function as a level 2 disjunctive. CJB resolves this by reading that mark as Meteg rather than Tiphcha. There's a second difference here between WLC and CJB, in their reading of the accent on the second word, with WLC taking it as the conjunctive Mahpak while CJB takes it as the disjunctive level 3 Yethib. Looking at the wording - "behold, the days are coming" - the question is whether it would be reasonable to split this into "behold, the days" and "are coming" - with the disjunctive Yethib interpretation requiring this. The answer seems to be no. Not unless a split is first made between "behold" and "the days are coming" - which can't happen without removing the Maqqeph. So go with CJB on the first word, and with WLC on the second. 
Jer 50:11 w4 ‏*תעלזי **תַֽעַלְז֔וּ 
Jer 50:11 w4 ‏*תעלזי **תַֽעֲלְז֔וּ Vowels. Slightly different - but doesn't affect transliteration. BHS agrees with CJB in leaving out the first sheva, so go with that
Lam 3:25 w3 לְקֹוָ֔ו 
Lam 3:25 w3 לְקוָֹ֔ו  Vowels. The WLC is trying to put both "o" and "a" on the same consonant (there's also a similar occurrence in Isa 49:23). The "o" on the first Vav is the issue. An "o" placed on the "q" as in the BHS, is displayed there on the "q", as long as the following Vav has its own vowel. And if the following Vav has no vowel, it and the preceding "o" are taken together to be the vowel, with the "o" shifting to the left and now displaying on the Vav, to show that they're functioning as a unit. In the WLC this left-shifted appearance has been reproduced - but in a context where it shouldn't be happening, since the Vav also has a vowel of its own, the "a". If the "o" had been correctly placed, the presence of the "a" would cause it to automatically shift back to displaying on top of the "q", as in the BHS. To enable the "o" to correctly shift in response to the presence or absence of the "a", it needs to be placed after the "q", between "q" and Vav. The mistake in the WLC is that it was placed -after- the Vav. But because of the automatic shifting feature of the font, it was easy to mistake this for the correct position. CJB and BHS agree on the correct positioning of the "o" - so adjust WLC to do the same. Note - there actually is one particular context where the "o" does not shift in response to the presence of "a", leaving "o" and "a" to display together on Vav, even though the "o" actually belongs with the previous consonant. This is in the name "יְהֹוָה". This seems misleading, making it less clear where the "o" is really attached - but maybe is done on purpose, because of the desire that this name not be pronounced. This irregularity very likely contributed to the misunderstanding which caused word 3 of Lam 3:25 (and the last word of Isa 49:23) to be incorrectly encoded in WLC. It may be that that the irregularity existed already in the hand-written texts - so had also been added into the fonts in order to faithfully represent the texts. But the adjustment for YHWH that's built into the fonts does not produce any shift in these two cases - in  Lam 3:25 and Isa 49:23. The shift apparently was desired anyway in order to better match the texts - so was produced by this violation of normal syllable structure. 
Ezk 3:25 w7 וַֽאֲסָר֖וּךָ 
Ezk 3:25 w7 וַאֲסָר֖וּךָ  Meteg. CJB and BHS agree on including Meteg here, so go with that
Ezk 25:7 w6 וּנְתַתִּ֤יךָ־*לבג **לְבַז֙ 
Ezk 25:7 w6 וּנְתַתִּ֤יךָֽ־*לבג **לְבַז֙  Meteg. CJB agrees with BHS on not including Meteg here, so go with that
Ezk 27:25 w8 בְּלֵ֥ב יַמִּֽים׃ 
Ezk 27:25 w8 בְּלֵ֥ב־יַמִּֽים׃  Maqqeph. With or without it, the two words are already marked as conjoined by the conjunctive Mereka. The choice has no impact on phrasing or pronunciation. CJB agrees with BHS on not including Maqqeph here, so go with that
Ezk 43:15 w4 ‏*ומהאראיל **וּמֵהָאֲרִיאֵ֣ל 
Ezk 43:15 w4 וּמֵהָאֲרִאֵ֣יל  Yod. CJB and BHS agree on putting Yod before Aleph, so go with that
Ezk 44:3 w5 ‏*לאכול־**לֶאֱכָל־לֶ֖חֶם 
Ezk 44:3 w5 לֶאֱכָול־לֶ֖חֶם  Vav or no. CJB and BHS agree on not including Vav here, so go with that
Dan 2:29 w1 ‏*אנתה **אַ֣נְתְּ 
Dan 2:29 w1 אַ֣נְתְּה  Cons He. CJB and BHS agree on leaving it out, so go with that
Dan 2:31 w1 ‏*אנתה **אַ֣נְתְּ 
Dan 2:31 w1 אַ֣נְתְּה  Cons He. CJB and BHS agree on leaving it out, so go with that
Dan 2:37 w1 ‏*אנתה **אַ֣נְתְּ 
Dan 2:37 w1 אַ֣נְתְּה  Cons He. CJB and BHS agree on leaving it out, so go with that
Dan 2:38 w11 ‏*אנתה־**אַנְתְּ־ה֔וּא 
Dan 2:38 w11 אַנְתְּה־ה֔וּא  Cons He. CJB and BHS agree on leaving it out, so go with that
Dan 4:22 w19 ‏*עליך **עֲלָ֑ךְ w23 ‏*עליא **עִלָּאָה֙ 
Dan 4:22 w19 עֲלָ֑יךְ w23 עִלָּיָא֙  w19 - Yod or no. CJB agrees with WLC on including it, so go with that. w23 - Yod or He. CJB agrees with BHS on +He -Yod, so go with that
Dan 4:29 w18 ‏*עליא **עִלָּאָה֙ 
Dan 4:29 w18 עִלָּיָא֙  Yod or He. CJB agrees with BHS on +He -Yod, so go with that
Dan 6:1 w2 ‏*מדיא **מָֽדָאָ֔ה 
Dan 6:1 w2 מָֽדָיָ֔א  Yod or He. CJB agrees with BHS on +He -Yod, so go with that
Hos 2:16 w8 עַל־לִבָּֽהּ׃ 
Hos 2:16 w8 עַל לִבָּֽהּ׃  Maqqeph. Without this we have a free-standing word with no accent at all. Having no disjunctive, it would need to be read as conjunctive by default, even though unmarked - so though its absence is an anomaly, it doesn't impact the phrase structure. But CJB agrees with BHS in including Maqqeph - so go with that
Hos 4:19 w6 מִזִּבְחוֹתָֽם׃ 
Hos 4:19 w6 מִזִּבְחוֹתָֽם  Soph Pasuq. Its absence at end of verse is unexpected - but it causes no real difficulty - no change in interpretations; only suspicion of a transcription error. But CJB agrees with BHS on including it - so go with that 
Hos 8:9 w9 אֲהָבִֽים׃ 
Hos 8:9 w9 אֲהָבִֽים   Soph Pasuq. Its absence at end of verse is unexpected - but it causes no real difficulty - no change in interpretations; only suspicion of a transcription error. But CJB agrees with BHS on including it - so go with that 
Hos 11:7 w8 יְרוֹמֵם׃  BHS -and- WLC
Hos 11:7 w8 יְרוֹמֵֽם׃  Accents. Verse-final Silluq/Meteg is missing in BHS and WLC. CJB includes it, so go with CJB rendering.
Amo 1:1 w10 עֻזִּיָּ֣ה 
Amo 1:1 w10 עֻזִיָּ֣ה  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS on including it, so go with that
Amo 1:2 w3 מִצִּיּ֣וֹן 
Amo 1:2 w3 מִצִיּ֣וֹן  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS on including it, so go with that
Amo 1:14 w12 סוּפָֽה׃ 
Amo 1:14 w12 סוּפָֽה  Soph Pasuq. Its absence at end of verse is unexpected - but it causes no real difficulty - no change in interpretations; only suspicion of a transcription error. CJB agrees with BHS on including it - so go with that
Amo 4:11 w10 מִשְּׂרֵפָ֑ה 
Amo 4:11 w10 מִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS on including it, so go with that
Amo 6:6 w10 יוֹסֵֽף׃ 
Amo 6:6 w10 יוֹסֵֽף  Soph Pasuq. Its absence at end of verse is unexpected - but it causes no real difficulty - no change in interpretations; only suspicion of a transcription error. CJB agrees with BHS on including it, so go with that
Amo 9:5 w15 מִצְרָֽיִם׃ 
Amo 9:5 w15 מִצְרָֽיִם  Soph Pasuq. Its absence at end of verse is unexpected - but it causes no real difficulty - no change in interpretations; only suspicion of a transcription error. CJB agrees with BHS on including it, so go with that
Oba 1:1 w16 עָלֶ֖יהָ 
Oba 1:1 w16 עָלֶיהָ  Accents. Omission of the disjunctive Tiphcha as in WLC creates a phrase structure error. But CJB agrees with BHS in keeping it - so go with that 
Oba 1:8 w4 נְאֻם יְהוָ֑ה 
Oba 1:8 w4 נְאֻם־יְהוָ֑ה  Maqqeph. The first word has no conjunctive - and the Maqqeph provided by WLC would provide that conjunctive function. But CJB agrees with BHS in leaving it out, so go ahead and leave it out. On the second word CJB differs from both WLC and BHS, filling in a missing vowel on the name YHVH. No need to be more restrictive in this matter than CJB - so follow CJB here as well.
Mic 1:15 w7 עַד־עֲדֻלָּ֥ם 
Mic 1:15 w7 עַד־עֲדֻּלָּ֥ם  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in not including it - so go with that
Mic 5:7 w12 בְּעֶדְרֵי־צֹ֑אן 
Mic 5:7 w12 בְּעֶדְרֵי צֹ֑אן  Maqqeph. It would make good sense for maqqeph to be there since there are no explicit conjunctives. And CJB agrees with BHS in including it - so go with that.
Mic 6:3 w7 בִֽי׃ 
Mic 6:3 w7 בִּֽי׃  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in not including it - so go with that
Mic 7:3 w7 בַּשִּׁלּ֑וּם 
Mic 7:3 w7 בַּשִׁלּ֑וּם  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in including it - so go with that
Hab 1:1 w1 הַמַּשָּׂא֙ 
Hab 1:1 w1 הַמַּשָׂא֙  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in including it - so go with that
Hab 3:19 w1 יְהוִ֤ה 
Hab 3:19 w1 יְהוִ֤הּ  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in not including it, so go with that. 
Zep 3:10 w4 בַּת־פּוּצַ֔י 
Zep 3:10 w4 בַּת־פוּצַ֔י  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in including it - so go with that
Hag 1:10 w4 שָׁמַ֖יִם 
Hag 1:10 w4 שָמַ֖יִם  Cons Shin. Without the mark to identify whether the consonant is Sin or Shin, the WLC rendering is defective. CJB agrees with BHS in marking the consonant as Shin - so go with this
Zec 1:4 w16 ‏*ומעליליכם **וּמַֽעַלְלֵיכֶ֖ם 
Zec 1:4 w16 ‏*ומעליליכם **וּמַֽעֲלְלֵיכֶ֖ם  Vowels. CJB agrees with BHS in not including the sheva in question, so go with that
Zec 1:10 w4 בֵּין־הַהֲדַסִּ֖ים 
Zec 1:10 w4 בֵּין־הַהַדַסִּ֖ים  Vowels. CJB agrees with BHS in including the sheva in question - so go with that
Zec 6:12 w16 יְהוָֽה׃ 
Zec 6:12 w16 יְהוָֽהּ׃  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in not including it, so go with that. CJB includes one additional detail, which differs from both WLC and BHS, filling in a missing vowel on the name YHVH. No need to be more restrictive in this matter than CJB - so follow CJB here as well, using the form יְהֹוָֽה
Zec 9:13 w4  קֶ֚שֶׁת  BHS -and- WLC
Zec 9:13 w4  קֶשֶׁת  Accents. Both BHS and WLC have Yetiv here, and at first I was stumbling over how to correctly gloss the phrasing. In the end it seems that Yetiv does work fine. But in exploring the phrasing it was found that CJB does not have this Yetiv, and that without it the confusion goes away. The point of confusion I think, is that with the two phrases "Judah" and "the bow" side by side, given that Judah -is- being described figuratively as a bow, there's a strong temptation to make this explicit by glossing these two together as a clause. But doing this prevents the neighboring phrase linkages from making sense - and besides this, the phrasing shows these two -not- to be most closely linked. The confusion is avoided if we just leave out Yetiv as in CJB, making "the bow I will fill with Ephraim" all one unit so that "the bow" isn't available to connect just on its own with the previous phrase. The identifying of "Judah" as "the bow", though also a legitimate understanding, is just left to be implicitly understood. Go with CJB rendering then, at least for now.
Zec 14:3 w7 הִֽלָּחֲמ֖וֹ 
Zec 14:3 w7 הִֽלָּחֲמ֖ו  Vowels. Vav needs to be a vowel here since it's directly following a consonant - but WLC leaves out its vowel marking. CJB agrees with BHS in including the missing "o" on Vav - so go with this.
Mal 1:8 w15 הֲיִרְצְךָ֙ 
Mal 1:8 w15 הֲיִּרְצְךָ֙  Dagesh. CJB agrees with BHS in not including dagesh here - so go with that