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. 145-146

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

2 long accents in FE (→EE)

Accent in bar 146 in GE1 (→GE2)

No marks in GE3

..

It is difficult to determine the reason the accent in GE was omitted – possible options are an oversight or a revision of GE (by analogy to bar 147?), or possibly the fact that the mark was added only just in the last phase of proofreading of FE. Not only did GE3 not complete that deficiency, but it also overlooked the mark in bar 146, which can also be interpreted as a mistake or revision.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Errors in GE

b. 145-147

composition: Op. 11, Concerto in E minor, Mvt III

Fingering written into FEH

No teaching fingering

..

The fingering of FEH raises certain doubts, in particular the 4th finger on f​​​​​​​3 in bar 145, which causes an unnecessary hand extension. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Annotations in teaching copies , Annotations in FEH

b. 145

composition: Op. 31, Scherzo in B♭ minor

..

Just like in b. 13, in the main text we add cautionary flats. The addition was performed already in GE2 (→GE3).

category imprint: Editorial revisions

issues: GE revisions

b. 145-146

composition: Op. 22, Polonaise

..

The traces of removal of rests and demisemiquaver beams, visible in FE, show that every other semiquaver was initially a demisemiquaver preceded by a rest: . In the corrected version, the variants of the rhythm including demisemiquavers are introduced gradually, which makes this sequence more varied and related to the harmonic changes.

category imprint: Corrections & alterations; Source & stylistic information

issues: Authentic corrections of FE , Main-line changes

b. 145-147

composition: Op. 50 No. 3, Mazurka in C♯ minor

No slurs in AI

2 slurs in AF & GE

2 slurs in FE

Slur in bar 147 in EE

..

The longer slur of FE may result from Chopin's proofreading, which is indicated by its absence in EE. Even if this was the case, according to us, it does not have to mean that Chopin wanted to change the concordant slurring of AF and GE, since the composer could have encompassed with a slur the entire phrase without noticing the slur in b. 147, which was moved under the stave in FE (it also cannot be ruled out that the engraver of FE misinterpreted this detail in the Chopinesque proof entry).
The missing slurs in AI are most probably an oversight – see b. 141-143.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Authentic corrections of FE