In the lower part of the column, only the basket (V31) can be identified undoubtedly. Above it on the right, a flat horizontal stroke is preserved that might have belonged either to a determinative of the preceding word or the beginning of the following word. None of suggested readings of the preceding word has determinatives that can graphically be reconstructed from the remains of the sign.
Assuming that the preceding word is to be read nb.w, a genetive construction might have followed here. One is reminded of the nb.w-mk.t, the "lords of protection" (s. See LGG III, 812), which are mentioned in connection with Heliopolis in the Papyrus Ebers of the 18th Dynasty. However, the spelling without the initial m-owl (G17) is not yet attested and not to be expected in the name of a group of deities. This would have been the result of a scribal error. Nonetheless, the beginning of this word is usually spelled with the group m-owl + arm (G20), and the partly preserved horizontal stroke above the basked could be the arm, so that only the owl is missing. The fact that also the feminine ending is not written, could be due to the Late Egyptian scribing habits (s. DZA 24.427.860). A scroll (Y1), the usual determinative of the nb.w-mk.t, might be reconstructed from the remains of the signs below the basket.
Another suggestion is a reading as 〈m〉kḥꜣ, "neglect, eschew": In this case, the arm (D36), the basket (V31) and, to the right below the basket, the papyrus shrub (M16) must be read. The traces of the sign in the right half of the lower text field might depict the papyrus blossoms; the groove in the shape of the bread (X1) could be the base of the shrub. The roundish trace in the lower left corner might be identified as part of the determinative of the human head (D1). In the context of appeal No. 210 of the offering formula (keyword: mꜣꜥ.t, "doing the rightful, speaking the rightful", Barta, Opferformel, 242), mkḥꜣ is attested on a statue of the 19th Dynasty (Barta, Opferformel, 156, n. 13). In a parallel construction, a deity is requested to jri̯.t mꜣꜥ.t mkḥꜣ jzf.t: "to do (jri̯.t) justice (mꜣꜥ.t) and to eschew (mkḥꜣ) evil (jzf.t)". "Act[ing] in a rightful way upon earth without neglecting (mkḥꜣ) it" is further attested on the left post of the niche in the Memphite tomb of Ḥr.w-m-ḥb (Martin, Ḥoremḥeb I, 89, post No. 71 (London BM EA 550), sixth column, pls. 109-110). In this inscription, the graphic appearance of the papyrus shrub is characterized by its base in the shape of the bread (X1), which is also present on the Heliopolitan fragment. Therefore, jzf.t might be reconstructed below the left column of the Heliopolitan fragment.
Thus, two appeals of the offering formula can be identified in the left column: mꜣꜣ nb.w: "the seeing of the lords" and mkḥꜣ [jzf.t]: "the eschewing [of evil]".

Autor:in des Kommentars: Klara Dietze

Should appeal No. 57 of the offering formula have occupied this column (cf. Barta, Opferformel, 145: (ḏi̯=f) jr.tj=f ḥr/m mꜣꜣ NP: "(may he cause) his eyes to see NP"), it seems plausible that jr.t=j or jr.tj=j was inscribed in the upper text passage ([jr.tj=f ḥr/m] mꜣꜣ); thus the spelling with a pair of eyes must be understood as the verb mꜣꜣ. They could also be read as jr.tj, "both eyes". Although the usual spelling of the dual jr.tj includes the feminine ending (Gardiner X1) as well as the ideogram stroke (Gardiner Z1), it could also be reduced to just the pair of eyes, s. Wb. 1, 106.7-108.1. However, taking the subsequent inscription into account, the following problem would ensue: The mentioning of the singular jr.t or jr.tj in dual would have required a – here not present – suffix pronoun as well as a postpositive verb. This was often solved with mꜣꜣ or gmḥ, which in many cases was composed as a pseudoverbal construction with the preposition ḥr. Although the reading of the following word poses several difficulties, the quail chick (Gardiner G43) and the ideogram (Gardiner Z1) classify it as a plural noun. The reading as jr.tj for the two eyes is therefore not plausible. It seems more likely that it was read mꜣꜣ, either with or without a preceding sickle; this particular spelling is attested since the Middle Kingdom (DZA 23.636.670, 23.636.700.142, 23.636.760, 23.636.770). Since mꜣꜣ was directly followed by an object, no verb is missing.

If it was appeal No. 89, the reconstruction of ḏi̯=f: "he may give" or ḏi̯=sn: "they may give" would be necessary, depending on which deity or constellation of deities was addressed in the offering formula ([ḏi̯=f/sn] mꜣꜣ). In this appeal, mꜣꜣ equally could have been used as infinitive, followed by a direct object (Barta, Opferformel, 147).

Autor:in des Kommentars: Klara Dietze

A proper reading of the passage following mꜣꜣ is impossible. However, as indicated by the quail chick (G43) and the ideogram stroke (Z1), a noun in plural use must be assumed here. As in the right column, the stroke is elongated.
It is still unclear which hieroglyph is engraved above. One option is the nb-basket (V30), indicating a reading as nb.w, "(the) lords". The absolute use of nb.w is hereby principally possible: "the superiors". As a designation for a group of deities, nb.w is attested in the Old and New Kingdom as well as in the Greco-Roman Period. Usually this is spelled with determinatives; however, they seem to have been left out because of the lack of space. More frequently, the nb.w are attested in genitive constructions: Thus, it seems reasonable to assume that the nb.w were followed by a genitive. Instead of the ideogram stroke (Z1), the graphic version of the plural strokes (Z3) would be expected here.
Another possibility would be the reading as channel (N36), which would have to be transcribed as mr.w(t) and translated as "popularity". However, in this case the feminine ending (X1), the plural strokes, the determinative of the of the seated man with hand to mouth (A2) as well as a specification of whose popularity is meant would be expected.
The sign could further be interpreted as the knife-sharpener (T31). Hence, the word could be identified as sšm.w, "statue, image (of a god or goddess)", Wb 4, 291.6-16, but the regular spelling of the word required the folded cloth (S29) as a phonetic complement. Nevertheless, also without the initial s, the phonetic value of the sign T31 remained sšm. Its abbreviated version, lacking the initial complement, is only attested in the spelling with the knife on legs (T32). Traces of such legs are not preserved on the present fragment. Moreover, the owl (G17) is also included in the regular spelling as is the determinative of the seated god (A40). Neither can be reconstructed based on the preserved traces of the signs.
Therefore, the reading as nb.w seems to be the most plausible one, merely with a graphic modification (Z1 instead of Z3); no missing consonants, phonetic complements or determinatives have to be restored.

Autor:in des Kommentars: Klara Dietze