in 
The mark in AF, in spite of its excessive size, could be considered a long accent if it were not for an even longer mark in analogous b. 168. Due to this reason, in the main text we keep the form of this mark written in AF, which, according to Chopin, could have been supposed to emphasise not only the minim, but also its modulating continuation. The absence of the mark in EE probably means that it was overlooked in the proof copy of FE. Then the long accent printed in the finished FE would be a result of Chopin's proofreading. A similar situation can be found in b. 168.
See b. 158-161
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Scope of dynamic hairpins
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins