Select: 
Category
All
Graphic ambiguousness
Interpretations within context
Differences between sources
Editorial revisions
Corrections & alterations
Source & stylistic information
Notation
All
Pitch
Rhythm
Slurs
Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
Verbal indications
Pedalling
Fingering
Ornaments
Shorthand & other
Importance
All
Important
Main


b. 5-6

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

 in FE, literal reading

in GE

 in FE (contextual interpretation→EE)

..

In FE (→GE) the  mark is placed only in b. 6, the first in a new line. However, the manner it was placed suggests that Chopin wanted it to begin earlier, probably similarly to the hairpin in b. 7-8. This is how it was understood in EE and this is the version we give in the main text. In turn, in GE the mark was considered to have been carelessly engraved, thus it was being gradually shortened and its starting point moved towards the 1st quaver in b. 6. 

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in GE , Scope of dynamic hairpins , GE revisions

b. 5

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Wedge in Afrag

Staccato dot in A1 (→FEEE) & GE

..

The wedge in Afrag is probably the original version (or simply an inaccuracy).

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 50 No. 1, Mazurka in G major

Slur reaching beyond bar 6 in AfragGE & contextual interpretation of A1

Slur to end of bar 6 in A1, literal reading

Slur to end of bar 5, interpretation 

Slur to minim in bar 6 in FE2 & EE

..

The slurs of Afrag and GE are unequivocal; since such a slur is featured in all analogous bars in GE, we give it – as present in [A2] – in the main text. The slur of FE is clearly erroneous, which was corrected in FE2 and EE, most probably on the basis of comparison with b. 1-2. The slur of A1 is problematic; just like the remaining slurs in the 1st line of the manuscript, it reaches the end of the bar, yet its shape suggests that it is supposed to be led to the beginning of the next bar. It is explicitly confirmed by the fact of ending the slur in b. 11 (on a new line) as well as by the unequivocal slur in b. 25-27, corrected by Chopin. In such a context, we interpret the slur of A1 as reaching the 1st quaver in b. 7.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , FE revisions , Uncertain slur continuation , Tenuto slurs

b. 5-6

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

..

Most accidentals before quavers are written lower than the corresponding noteheads. In this case it poses obviously no risk of a misunderstanding.

category imprint: Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidental below/above the note

b. 5

composition: WN 37, Lento con gran espressione

No slurs in A1, CK & EL

Slurs in CJ & CB

..

The fact that the slurs are featured in CJ only makes us think that they could have been added by Chopin, who might have had the opportunity to go over this copy. However, it is an assumption only that actually does not influence the evaluation of authenticity of these slurs in any way.
The slurs in CB must be an arbitrary addition of the writer, who provided the L.H. part with slurs in the entire piece. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Balakirev's revisions