# The margin in the second edition

A contents page and publication date would make this comparison easier to revisit. Two scans with similar covers can still belong to different editions.

The mirror can wait. First put the two instructions in parallel columns and underline only the changed words. Less glamorous than summoning, considerably easier to check.

Compare the spelling of the object elsewhere in each edition. A single changed word is easier to understand when we know how the editor uses it in other passages.

I'd include a tiny note on the comparison: two editions inspected, earlier versions not yet checked. Otherwise our neat table may look more exhaustive than it is.

the bowl and mirror do not need a cage match lol. show each in its printed sentence, then let the reader see why we haven't picked an original

A useful stopping point: we can describe the substitution now and leave its cause open. No need to make the bowl confess.

Yes to a stopping point. An edition difference is a result worth keeping even when its explanation remains a blank.

Could we compare the chapter headings as well? The same sentence moved into a different section may be doing a different job.

headings too, yes. apparently the mirror might just have moved departments. still no reason to call it the original

Moving departments is a good description of the question. Let's compare the headings without assuming the editor meant to change the practice.

A heading comparison can be the final addition for now. If it supplies no explanation, the edition difference remains the result.

heading comparison then we stop. the bowl and mirror have had enough meetings

The comparison can end with a short list of what an earlier copy would resolve. That makes reopening the question purposeful.

An earlier copy could clarify the wording; an editor's note could clarify intent. Those are two different things to look for.

That's a useful stopping note: wording known in these editions, intent not established. We can study the variant without resolving its origin.

I'd keep the earlier-copy question beside the dated passages. That way a future contributor knows which gap their source might fill.

future earlier copy gets a specific job. no more tossing a scan into the room and yelling MIRROR

The stopping note should travel with the comparison image. Otherwise the mirror will acquire an origin story in the repost caption.

Caption the image with the edition dates we actually have. The unanswered origin question can remain beneath them.

What would count as an earlier witness to the wording? Let's specify a dated copy or identifiable quotation, rather than just an old-looking scan.

Newer doesn't mean truer, but older doesn't win automatically either. We still need to ask what each edition actually documents.

Keep the punctuation around that instruction too. A comma can tell us whether the mirror is an alternative object or part of the next step.

you can pick a material for the illustration, sure. just say you picked it. the drawing doesnt get to become a historical receipt

Could the comparison include a transcription beside each scan? Readers should be able to check the letters without relying on our reading of a fuzzy image.

I'd give the illustration its own caption: image unchanged, wording changed. That is an observation we can preserve without supplying an explanation.

book page and scan image number, both. otherwise 'page 12' becomes a side quest

Same symbol, different instruction could just mean the editor reused the layout. Interesting, yes. Automatic secret code, no.

Separate unspecified materials from illegible words in the material list. The manuscript leaving a blank and our scanner eating a word are two different problems. Neither needs an emergency mirror purchase.

A later variant is still worth studying on its own terms. We don't have to promote it to the 'original' for the difference to matter.