The only version of unquestionable authenticity is the version of A. Unfortunately, the notation of that fragment suggests that Chopin was less concentrated when writing it, which perhaps was due to the repetition of the phrase already written before. The most glaring example is the lack of a tie sustaining a flat1, but also the flamboyantly written 
may be considered imprecise. Both GE1 and GE2 basically reproduce the marking of A; the evidently earlier beginning of the mark may be attributed to the manner employed by the engravers of the German edition. Part of the sign related to bar 28 was reproduced in line with an earlier writing convention of GE1 and in the manner corresponding to contemporary habits in GE2.
Another element that can be considered authentic is the accent sign in bar 28 in FE (→EE). That sign could be added by Chopin while proofing , but it is also possible that it found its way to FE as a result of mistakenly reversing the sign to be printed by the engraver (cf. bar 6). however, even if the latter is true it is quite probable that Chopin actually accepted it when reviewing FE (the conceptual change related to dynamics took place later).
Our proposal takes into account the hairpins of A, adjusted to the real shape of the motif to which they relate and the accent of FE, which we reproduce as a long one because of an undoubtedly long accent in the subsequent bar (both accents look the same in FE).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Errors in FE, Unclear hairpins in A
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
