If what we have recovered is correct, ạbebis must be for habebis (cf. 649). Before it perhaps -ḷlọṣ ịlḷos but both i and the first s are not easy readings.
If line 2 was slightly inset with respect to line 1 and nothing was lost at the left, we think the reading ḥaṇc̣ ṭị|ḷịaṃ very probable. We may have the same expression in 643.ii.4-5, see note.
We are baffled by aud, which looks a clear reading. Neither (h)aud nor aud for aut is attractive.
Download EpiDoc version using the CC license and
EpiDoc Schema v.5