The pitch of the 2nd semiquaver in the 5th triplet is questionable – when interpreted literally, it is an e3; however, in all analogous places a respective note is placed a fifth (perfect) lower than the previous one, in this case e
3, which suggests Chopin's possible mistake. In uneven triplets, the 2nd and 3rd semiquavers melodically combine with the next triplet, which Chopin carefully marked with R.H. slurs; however, this does not determine their harmonic affiliation. The latter is determined by the L.H. sequence (with different slurs!), consisting of D-T sequences filling two subsequent quavers, which, in turn, is clearly signalled by the bass voice beams. If we also take into account Chopin's tendency to forget about previous alterations (in this case it is really far – this is the only bar within bars 321-329 in which the 1st semiquaver is altered), an accidental oversight of a 
restoring e3 seems very likely. Therefore, the absence of a 
to the unquestionable e3 in the next triplet belongs to Chopin's typical inaccuracies – it is a note belonging to the current chord (A major) and was marked a semiquaver earlier in the L.H. part. Taking into consideration the above, in the main text we suggest adding accidentals so that the discussed fragment of the progression does not deviate from the binding scheme.
In AsI the 5th triplet in the bar is presented in the initial form (see also bar 328), in which the problematic note is absent. The introduction of a change in this place is an argument for Chopin's mistake in A, since corrections narrow down the attention field, which is conducive to errors.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Editorial revisions; Corrections & alterations
issues: Accidentals in different octaves, Omissions to cancel alteration, Errors resulting from corrections, Errors of A, Main-line changes
notation: Pitch