one change made

while 2:264 was a mistake made inadvertent­ly in Cairo

on 56:2 Qaṭar made a conscious change

Because 55:2 is written without alif in Al-Mushaf Al-Sharif Attributed to Uthman Bin Affan in the Topkapı Palace published by Tayyar Altıkulaç (İSAM) who adviced the Qaṭāris they followed the old manuscript.

mistake corrected

A mistake made in Cairo in 1924 got corrected in Madina.
The typesetter in Būlāq made a mistake in 2:264.
ʿUṯmān Ṭaha copied it faith­fully.
The King Fahd Complex corrected it.
The hamza should not sit on the tooth.

UT1 UT2 UT3

After the King Fahd Complex had printed millions of UT1 they invited him to Madina to write for them a Warsh muṣḥaf, then an improved Ḥafṣ ‒ and later Qālūn, an other Warsh (this tome on 604 pages), ad-Dūrī and Šuʿba.
The new script is a bit more cursive, bigger (i.e. there is less empty space between lines) and has less letter variants. On the image above middle-hāʾ has three forms on the left, only one on the right, rāʾ (and zai) have two forms on the left, one on the right, tāʾ can have the two dots verticaly on the left, not on the right, and the two forms of final mīm are equally distributed on the left, while on the right the short stroke to the left predominates.
Here the page layout differs (with two more verses on the left), but, if I am not mistaken that occurs only in the last ǧuz: all in all minor changes.

The change from UT2 to UT3 brought:
headlines (sura titel boxes) never come at the bottom of a page,
rather as the head of the next;
end-of-aya-numbers never come at the beginning of a line
rather at the end of the line before.

And now comes a dif­ference that is con­nected to one of MY observa­tions that is missed by most "ex­perts".
I say: Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ḫalaf al-Ḥusainī al-Mālikī aṣ-Ṣaʿīdī al-Ḥaddād (1282/1865‒1357/ 22.1.1939) adopted many Anda­lusian/Maġ­ribī/Western things without mention­ing it in the post­script, which makes me think that he copied a Moroccon muṣḥaf.
One of the points: Ottoman Egypt, Persia, India and Nusantara have one kind of tanwīn (one an, one un, one in), but indepen­dant Egypt has three just as Morocco, but there is a problem. Ottomans did not know how sequential fathatan is written.
When one com­pares the Warš muṣḥaf and the early Ḥafṣ maṣā­ḥif by UT the sequential fathatan are different.









Because UT is not only a good scribe but also a good ob­server:
he noticed that the second fatha (the left one) is above the first in Morroco, but below in the KFE ‒ I assume that the type setter just used kasratans lifted up.

A couple of years ago Madina noticed the mis­take and asked UT to correct it, which is done in UT3:

Once alerted to this: the old fathatan (light blue background) look wrong, they do do follow the natural way of writing from right to left.
‒ ­

UT0 UT1 UT2 UT3

It is common knowledge that the King Fuʾād Edition of the Ḥafṣ qirāʾa was an immediate success in the Muslim world. common knowledge, but not true. Orien­t­alists bought it, but hardly an Egyp­tian because with almost 850 big pages it is too bulky ‒ they pre­fered the edition written by Muṣṭafā Naẓīf Qadir­ġalī on 522 pages. Because the govern­ment pushed the new ortho­graphy, adapta­tions of the old muṣḥaf with 15 lines on 522 pages but with the new ortho­graphy were published. Later Shamarly paid Muḥammad Saʿd Ibrāhīm al-Ḥaddād to copy the MNQ line by line but in the new ortho­graphy and had it printed in dif­ferent sizes and with different covers. In the Sixties the Govern­ment produced a type set muṣḥaf on 525 pages. So, althought the King Fuʾād Edition was not a best­seller, its ortho­graphy was estab­lished in Egypt by 1975.
But for the Andalu­sian ortho­graphy of Ḥafṣ to con­quer the Arab world, the genius of a scribe and some oil money were needed. ʿUṯmān Ṭaha had learned calli­graphy in Aleppo and Istan­bul, were Hamid Aytaç / Ḥāmid al-Āmidī taught him.
He works precisely, not artistically, he follows the lead of the KFE by using stacked forms (earlier letters above later ones) only if and when the vowel signs can be places exactly above or below its seat, and each letter being always the same ‒ swash forms of rāʾ, zai, kāf, elon­gated nūn and end yāʾ being the exception.
He copied the qurʾānic text (not the taʿrīf) of the KFE of 1952 (i.e. the Moroccan text of al-Ḥusainī al-Ḥaddād al-Mālikī with the modi­fica­tions (esp. pause signs) by ʿAlī Muḥammad aḍ-Ḍabbāʿ) with even less stacked forms
on 604 pages as made common by Haǧǧ Ḥāfiẓ ʿUṯmān Ḫalīfa QayišZāde an-Nūrī al-Bur­durī (d. 1894) (each ǧuz ‒ except the last because of the many sura title boxes ‒ on twenty pages, all verses ending in the bottom left corner includ­ing 2:282) ‒ this tem­plate is called ber kenar/one edge in Turkish and maḫtūm in Arabic.

Although his manu­script got several seals of being with­out mis­takes (see above), it had five minor mis­takes; a part from them it is a faith­ful repro­duction of the KFE of 1952 with all its features (notab­ly pause signs).
I call all versions that have one to five of these mis­takes "ʿŪṯmān Ṭaha 0" (UT0) to mark the dif­ference to the Madina prints in which these mis­takes are corrected. As Muḥammad Hozien has pointed out, there are three dif­ferent styles printed by the KFC. I call them UT1, UT2 and UT3

But first UT0, the versions with scribal errors. On page 11 there is no error. I include it only because UT0 follows the KFE, but Madina (KFC) changes the writing: putting the hamza on a small alif a practice common in Tunisian manus­cripts and prints of Qālūn.

on the next page a fatha WAS missing, the editor added it above the mīm; it is dif­ferent from the ones written by UT himself:

on the next page we have هٰذان instead of هٰذٰن :

here a sukūn/ǧazm is missing on a final he

here at the end of the second but last line there is a lazim sign (م) that shoudn't be there

The Istanbul Çağrı publisher publishes many translations with UT0 next to the translation, till today with only one of the mistakes corrected.

on the bottom of the next page the missing sukūn was added:

Here the big alif is replace by a dagger, but one sees the larger than necessry space.