The version of this bar visible in A is correctly written and completely logical, harmonically speaking. What is more, it exactly corresponds to the version of bar 108 (except for a different position of the chord at the beginning of the bar). Therefore, there is no reason to look for Chopin's mistake therein, which the reviser of GE (→FE,EE) tried to do, particularly since we are not dealing with any typical mechanism of Chopinesque mistakes – it is neither an overlooked cancellation of an altered note nor an omission of an accidental belonging to the current key.
On the other hand, in all three remaining analogous pairs of bars (bars 108-109, 116-117 and 321-322), the last quaver in the first bar is the same as the last quaver in the 1st half of the second bar, which can be considered an argument for overlooked naturals. Another argument is provided by the fact that Chopin was often uncertain regarding the current key signature – e.g. in bar 317 we can see a 
to a
, which could mean that Chopin temporarily considered a note at this pitch devoid of a to be a (other similar situations – see, e.g. bar 185, 283 or 297). According to us, the second group of arguments is slightly more convincing, hence in the main text we provide the version with an A-a octave, considering A-a an equal variant.
The compliance between A and EE seems accidental – EE1 stands out due to its number of oversights and mistakes, out of which not all were corrected in EE2.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: GE revisions, Errors of A
notation: Pitch
