The composition of Savitri has a long history, starting from August 1916 till mid-November 1950. The epic began as a short narrative based on the Mahabharata tale and grew from about eight hundred to twenty-four thousand lines. In the process it developed into a symbolic transformative legend which is also the luminous medium for presenting experiences and realisations of the Yogi-Author, his prophetic vision. While the first part of Savitri is essentially in Sri Aurobindo own hand, the other two appear mostly by dictation. There are now some eight thousand sheets of manuscripts and typescripts. During the period of composition these drafts went back and forth, to the typist, the press, and back to the Author who took every opportunity to expand or revise the earlier text. Understandably, the involved process through which the final version of Savitri came out in 1950-51 could entail variations in the readings. It is said that a "substantial number of discrepancies" or "serious errors" have crept into it. As not unlikely, while preparing an edited version of such a work judgemental aspects would also enter in. It is claimed that the Revised Edition of Savitri which came out in 1993 is the outcome of a systematic comparison and study of the archival documents. Effectively now it carries the stamp of official approval. However, the claim made by this edition needs an independent verification. Unfortunately its approach is based on some dubious premises, making it suspect at places. In it there is no hesitation in speaking of "oversight" on part of the Author himself or in seeing his "final intentions". The worse is, he at times making slips and forgetting his own spiritual philosophy or poetic art. Such ideas are not only tawdry; they lack the simplest yogic etiquettes. The current work is just a brief attempt in indicating the flaws that have crept in the official publication of Savitri, the 1993 Revised Edition. A detailed presentation could be undertaken in the course of time, it running into several thousand pages of a book. But for a satisfactory account access to data bank of the Archives is desirable, is absolutely essential. In the context of editorial revisions of Savitri it is necessary that we take due care of the complexities. Perhaps the best procedure for editors of the Savitri-text could be to fix the first complete version as the basic reference. As far as the said "slips and oversights" are concerned, extensive research notes and references could be provided; these might include several readings as we have in different drafts. Presentation of the data should be the foremost concern in any objective research and editing. By providing such "factual" details a new chapter of study can open out. If we go a step farther, the best thing will be to make the Archival documents a part of Open Resources. In fact these should be made in the digital version for access the world over. Apparently, the issue of editing Savitri maybe of a minor nature; it may be of interest only in its academic context. But in the yogic context it assumes an altogether different significance; it could be the thin line that divides evolutionary success and failure. It must also be emphasised that the Word of Savitri in its pristine glory and power continues to be always valid; it is that which can bring to our life the expression of the Real-Idea itself. That is its genuine value and that will always remain faultless and free, - because behind it is the very yogic force of its creator.