Yep.
The P90 Edition has 10mcg per drop of P90. This is a great molecule that has a similar feel as A314 does already. It was used in the Chemical Charisma tests, which generated some impressive results.
I hate doing something like this in oil, since P90 costs so much (it’s a specialty chemical to say the least), but it’s pretty exciting at the same time. I can’t wait to try this one myself!
The Bonding Editionnhas bonding and social mones - 20mcg total added per drop. Makes A314 more “all in one”. This comes close to the “AXS” (“access”) mix I did with the A314 base a long time ago, but never released.
I know not everyone will buy the combo, but I’ll likely try a drop or two of this, with a drop of the P90 Edition.
The Extra androstenone edition includes 50% more androstenone. I probably wouldn’t use this edition myself, since I feel that it breaks with the particular projected image that I enjoy.
However, some men use A314 for attraction purposes, and this should work well in this regard. It will certainly reduce the “fatherly” feeling of A314 a bit, but at the same time make a bit more more useful for “playing the field” without as much subsequent fallout.
I’ll explain “fallout” in more detail: women tend to want typical A314 users all for themselves. It’s truly a “this is my man” type of mix, when used for attraction. A314 can attract some amazing women to you, normally out of reach women – no doubt – but it comes with a price normally. That price is often ownership of your soul. 
(I jest by exaggerating a bit, but… with some women.. who knows!)
On the other hand, androstenone tends to strongly communicate the type of man who’s good for sperm, and little else. The genetic “wildcard” that fulfill innate biological needs for perquisite variety, and nothing else. The kind of men they’d invite to bed while they ovulate, but not to breakfast the next day. “Get out of my bed, you stinky pig!”
See “Evolution of Desire” by David M. Buss as a reference. There’s some amazing corollaries between evolutionary psychology and pheromones. I think what we’ve seen as pheromonal effects adds signicant evidence to the theories of evolutionary psychology.
Of course, evolutionary psychology adds to the pheromonal body of knowledge. It’s a two way street. For the serious pheromone enthusiast, I highly recommend the study of body evolutionary psychology and “human ethology”.
Lastly, of course, the Ultrafine Edition uses a preview of our newest in-house chemical specification. It’ll be to see how the new specification changes something as stable (and almost classical?) as A314.
You often can’t just drop in an alternate synthesis of a chemical, and expect it to work exactly the same as it did before. I’m not just hallucinating this. Split tests here show this to be true, and I have a retired friend from BASF in France (probably the biggest chemical company in Europe) who delights in the fact that I’ve noticed this.
When they’ve changed starting materials and/or done process development and changed the synthesis route, they’ve seen different effects in end products. Even in colors used for jeans. The % of active product you see in a certificate of analysis simply does not tell the whole story.
Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.