I noticed table B wrongly says "Vertebral element" instead of Appendicular element, Pedal element, etc.. In Table B, a right MTIII is listed instead of whatever phalangeal fragment was meant. In Table 1 in the Ceratonykus comparison, you say "Basal phalanges of the second and fourth digits are missing in IVPP V20341", but you actually identify an element as II-1. Line 173 is no doubt supposed to say "across two posterior cervicals".
More importantly than these typos, your statements like "None of the listed osteological features are present in IVPP V20341" and "IVPP V20341 lacks the autapomorphies of any Mongolian parvicursorine, so this provides limited support for the distinctiveness of the Bayan Mandahu fauna" are misleading. Based on your Table 1, IVPP V20341 doesn't 'lack autapomorphies' of Albinykus, Ceratonykus, Shuvuuia and Parvicursor- it doesn't preserve the material to evaluate those autapomorphies. This provides zero support for the distinctiveness of the fauna or the validity of the taxon. Ironically, this makes Linhenykus the most demonstrably different parvicursorine from IVPP V20341. I also notice Xixianykus is missing from the table. Note too that many of the listed autapomorphies were proposed before other taxa were described, so that e.g. Ceratonykus also has long basipterygoid processes and large prefrontals, not just Shuvuuia.
Figure 2B supposedly shows a "convex articular face" on the anterior portion of a cervical centrum, which would make this opisthocoelous (or biconvex), not procoelous.
Also, your added states for cervical coely and ventral convexity are not how characters should be formed. You don't make new states for having multiple states in one taxon, you just code the character as polymorphic- (01) in PAUP or  in TNT.