الن vs. ان لن

There are many false assertions about the King Fuʾād Edition:
that it is type printed ‒ it is type set, but offset printed
that it established Ḥafṣ ʿan ʿĀṣim as the most wide­spread read­ing
  ‒ the three gun powder empires ‒ Mame­luke, Timurid, Safa­vid ‒ did that,
    because for their non-Arabic elites that reading is the easiest,
    because closed to Standard Arbic
that it fixed the text once and for all ‒ in reality the oral text was fixed centuries ago,
the written text had minor variations, AS HAS the KFE.
Here I will not write about the more than 900 changes that the 1952 edition brought in the qurʾānic text (including the sura title boxes), but just about one word in 73:20: /allan/.
This is not about /allan/ in general.
At most places it has a fixed spelling,
e.g. 18:48 لن

at 72:12 ان لن

just about 73:20 where we find a back and forth. In 1924 (in the Giza print) we have لن in the first line

unchanged in the first small Būlāq print

changed in 1347/1928/9

back in 1952

the same in the small edition of 1955

and in the small edition of 1962

But in 1959: ان لن
(Havards holds all these editions ‒ Muḥammad Hozien took the pictures)

So far for real KFEs, which means
‒ published by the Government Press/Amiriyya
‒ no title page = [p.1] is completly empty
‒ an-nās on p. 827
‒ 12 lines per page
‒ catch word on each right page
‒ ǧuz, ḥizb, saǧada, sakta in medallions on the margin
‒ text after an-nās with abǧad pagination
‒ big format (27 x 19 cm) printed by the Survey of Egypt)
    small format (20 x 15 cm) printed by the Amiriyya itself in Būlāq
    (when a library has a 24 cm codex it is a cut and rebound big edition)
‒ no duʿāʾ ‒ a secular edition, by and for the state, not al-Azhar, as often claimed
‒ no eulogies after ʿUṯmān bn ʿAffān, ʿAlī bn Abī Ṭālib etc. in the information after the qurʾānic text
‒ no bookmark

Let's move on to "reprints" by private printers or foreign states.
China Bekin 1955 (1924 text ‒ without dedication to Fuʾād)

Sowjet Uzbekistan, Taškend 1960 (1952 ‒ without dedication to Fuʾād)

Cairo Šarikat al-Iʿalānāt aš-šarqiya 1961

Jordan, first (1977, 4th edition)

Jordan, second (1993, reprint of Bairut/Damaskus 1975, with yellow floral frame that disappeared due to high contrast)

Bairut 1977

Bairut Dār al-Qurʾān (Muḥammad Baṣṣām al-Istwānī) 1398/1978
(the bookmark on the bottom of the images shows that it not an KFE)

Paris Dār al-Fikr 1981 (with french on opposite page)

Kuwait Mogahwi Press 1981

Qaṭar 1985 ‒ with added nūn

Bairut Dār al-lubnānī 1985, with "all right" by Maḥmūd al-Ḥuṣarī

With tafsīr

And as last group: private editions with the KFE set text, but rearranged
Muṣḥaf al-Malik, Cairo 1935

Cairo ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān Muḥammad/Dār al-Muṣḥaf 1971

Bairut 1983

Damascus 1983 Marwān Sawār

Neither a reprint, nor a rearrangement of KFE set lines, but a reSet is the Hyderabad edition of 1938. It has been photomechanical reproduced in London (i.a. for Sharja), Islamabad, and Bairut (for the Libyan World Islamic Call Society). See what the Indians did, what was made for the Libyans;

In 1976 die Amiriyya switched from the KFE to Muṣḥaf al-Azhar aš-Šarīf:

In 1979 the first (?) ʿUṯmān Taha muṣḥaf was published by Dār aš-Šāmiya on 603 pages in Damascus

Three years later the World Association of Muslim Youth, Riaḍ published it unchanged

On Xmas 1983 in Tehran it was published WITH a change

Since than from Çağrı Yayınları in Istanbul

and from Madina (with a nūn !)

‒ ­

numbers after each verse

I tend to think: marking the end of verses is important,
not putting a number each time,
because the end-of-verse-sign imply the numbers.

I admit: there are two things that make is complicated
In Muṣḥaf al-Muḫallalātī the end-of-verse of all seven canonical systems are indicated, so the numbers are not that easily countable, but they are there.
In some maṣāḥif the same sign is use of end-of-verse and for an ob­ligat­ory stop within a verse,
the "fake" ends not being counted in the number-of-verses given in the sura-title-box ‒ some­thing clear only to the experts.

Muhammad Hozien has (for the time being) established the first printed muṣ­ḥaf with numbers after each verse: Istanbul 1298/1881

But
I still do not see the big difference to Hafez Osman, the Elder putt­ing an ع at the end of each tenth verse and an عشر at the margin:

or Muḥammad Amīn Rušdī using the abjad ten: ے

above the last word of the tenth, twentieth, thirdith ... verse there is a ے
In the manuscript there were no numbers; they were added 1370/1951 for the ʿIrāqī State print.

Attention
Sometimes the same (or similar) sign can stand for different things.
While small ʿain with /ʿašara/ at the margin says: 10 or 20 or 30 ..., it can stand for rukūʿ;
above, in the last line, at the end of verse 29, one just has to know ...
... on the next image, i.e. in India there is a big ʿain on the margin with num­bers in it:

To another example that one and the same sign can stand for different things.
The sign is called the short one/ quṣair or the dagger/ ḫanǧar
In the now common Western, Andalusian, African system

it stands for a "missing" vowel letter, an alif needed to lengthen a fatḥa not in the rasm;
four times in the first line, twice in the second ‒ twice, because the third quṣair is not a fill-in alif, but a con­ver­ter/changer of the alif in the shape of yāʾ into a "noraml" alif;
in the last word the vowel letter is not missing, it is just ambiguous.
In the East (India, Indonesia, Persia, Ottoman Empire ...) the same sign is neither a replacement vowel nor a vowel con­verter but a vowel sign, a long fatḥa (or turned fatḥa). While in the West there is the vowel sign fatḥa plus a leng­thening letter sign, in the East, there is just a long vowel sign.
In the West there are only three vowel signs (plus sukūn) hence a lengthening vowel is necessary.
In the East there are three short, three long vowel signs (plus sukūn).

looks the same, but is not the same, letter in the West, vowel sign in the East:

And there is more diversity:
While in the now standard IndoPak system this /ā/ stands only when no alif follows, there are spell­ing that have it, even if an alif follows:

This is Hūd 22-25 from an Indian manu­script from around 1800: you find the long vowel marks ir­respec­tive of what follows:
BTW, the red dots are end-of-verse-markers, and after /taḏakirūn/ there is a rukūʿ, cf. the ʿain on the margin.
The same text according to the new Iranian system, in which vowel letters with­out ḥaraka ‒ with which they would be con­sonants ‒ are long vowels; the letter before the vowel does not carry a vowel sign:

On the right of the image below there are inscrip­tions on buildings in Aleppo,
on the left from a muṣḥaf written by an-Nairizī;
both use the quṣair irrespective of an alif follo­wing or not:

Below from the ʿIrāqi State muṣḥaf of 1951:
again the dagger even when followed by an alif
and they make mistakes: four times they both put a normal fatḥa and this long fatḥa; the co-existence of different systems confused them:

‒ ­