the clipping is not an oṁ symbol. It is the initial ā from the beginning of the text, āsīt sarvva-mahīkṣitām etc. The symbol Fleet renders with oṁ in his edition is the curl in the left margin next to line 3 (not line 1!). Whether that symbol actually represents the word oṁ is debatable. The prevailing opinion seems to be that it does not; if it is associated with any lexical meaning, then it's more likely siddham or siddhi. I'm not sure there are any strong arguments for this but seem to recall (I may be wrong) that (some variant of) the sign does occasionally occur next to oṁ written out in regular script.
For the history of the sign, see
Boeles, J.J. 1947. ‘The Migration of the Magic Syllable Oṃ’. In India Antiqua: A Volume of Oriental Studies Presented by His Friends and Pupils to Jean Philippe Vogel., c.i.e. on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of His Doctorate, 40–56. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
who seems to take it for granted that it represents oṁ.
Roth, Gustav. 1986. ‘Mangala-Symbols in Buddhist Manuscripts and Inscriptions’. In Deyadharma: Studies in Memory of Dr. D.C. Sircar, edited by Gouriswar Bhattacharya, 239–49. Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series 33. Delhi: Sri Satguru.
Sander, Lore. 1986. ‘Om or Siddham — Remarks on Openings of Buddhist Manuscripts and Inscriptions from Gilgit and Central Asia’. In Deyadharma: Studies in Memory of Dr. D.C. Sircar, edited by Gouriswar Bhattacharya, 239–49. Sri Garib Dass Oriental Series 33. Delhi: Sri Satguru.
Shomakhmadov, S. 2012. ‘The Features of the Interpretation of Mañgala-Symbols in Buddhist Sanskrit Manuscripts from Central Asia’. Manuscripta Orientalia 18: 9–23.
Best wishes,