In the main text we follow the marks of GE, in which the markings are more accurate in this fragment (pedalling in b. 117-121, 
in b. 119). The only element we modify is the ending of the mark, since b. 121 closes a line in this edition; therefore, even if the notation of [AG] resembled the one of AF, the engraver could have considered the placement of a very short ending of a hairpin in a new line to be irrational. The version of AF (→FE) can be considered an equal variant.
In fact, the difference may be subtle – the mark of AF suggest the most emphasis on the crotchet ending b. 120, whereas in the version of GE such a local climax can be this chord or the minim in b. 121.
The missing mark in EE is probably an oversight.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Scope of dynamic hairpins, Errors in EE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins