It is true that unlike the capital "I" that starts the row immediately below, your "I" happens to have a shorter left serif, either because it has become erased due to the age of the manuscript or because it has been poorly written originally.
Despite this defect of this particular letter, which is not a frequently seen defect, I still cannot see how the right serif could be confused with a right hook. The letters would have to be much more degraded for the difference between an orthogonal serif and a curved hook to become invisible.
I agree that the differences between the 6 narrow alphanumeric characters "1IJijl" are small so they are more likely to disappear when the letters are partially erased, but when the letters are intact and they have been written with the right distinct shapes they can still be distinguished easily, in contrast with some typefaces (usually sans-serif typefaces) where they are intentionally made more similar than they were traditionally, which has been a very bad idea, so such typefaces (e.g. Helvetica or Arial) should be avoided.
Despite this defect of this particular letter, which is not a frequently seen defect, I still cannot see how the right serif could be confused with a right hook. The letters would have to be much more degraded for the difference between an orthogonal serif and a curved hook to become invisible.
I agree that the differences between the 6 narrow alphanumeric characters "1IJijl" are small so they are more likely to disappear when the letters are partially erased, but when the letters are intact and they have been written with the right distinct shapes they can still be distinguished easily, in contrast with some typefaces (usually sans-serif typefaces) where they are intentionally made more similar than they were traditionally, which has been a very bad idea, so such typefaces (e.g. Helvetica or Arial) should be avoided.