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


Pitch

b. 66

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

In JC, the bass clef is not restored, which is a patent mistake. The same applies to bar 102.

category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources

issues: Errors of JC

b. 67

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

f in JC & PE

in EF

..

The compatibility of the version of JC and PE, in which the 5th semiquaver is a f, points to the error (or revision) of EF.

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 67

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

Small crotchet in JC

Acciaccatura in EF

No ornament in PE

..

Lack of the grace note in PE does not seem to be a mistake – Chopin probably resigned from it, while writing [A] (maybe he did not want to repeat the ploy from bar 16 and analog.?). It is hard to determine which form of the grace note – a crotchet or a slashed quaver – was featured in [AI]. Moreover, Chopin was not too accurate in writing grace notes: small non-slashed quavers, and even crotchets, may sometimes indicate short ornaments, which, according to the rules, should have a form of a slashed quaver. 

category imprint: Differences between sources

b. 67

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

Lack of the  raising f1 into fin JC and PE is a patent Chopin's oversight.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Accidentals in different octaves , Inaccuracies in PE , Inaccuracies in JC

b. 67

composition: WN 17, Polonaise in B♭ major

..

The cautionary  before a1 is already in JC and EF.

category imprint: Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information

issues: Cautionary accidentals