But resolution -- thanks for responding, by the way -- is fixed in history and geography. That makes the resolution of Chopin infinitely high, as long as you have the information.
As far as standard, it's a symbolic notation and each symbol has a definition attached in its context. As for incompatible extensions? Oh, so not true. A defined extension in the context of composer, geography, and time (as well as, in the past 75 years, by definition from the composer) makes the necessary portion reproducible. What is to be reproduced is specific, and ambiguity is a deliberate part of the system. Knowing the 'extensions' makes the heart of the music reproducible -- as in Berio's "Sequenza" for solo voice, which old-school musicians would see as gibberish, but which, when studied for symbol meaning in context, ends up with performances that are as similar as necessary for compositional depth and ambiguity.
That's where the recording project not only fails, but misrepresents the composers' "programs" themselves -- and why those documents are not programs, and their infinite reproducibility has to do with the human definition, not the mechanical one.