Did P.Oxy. 2288 contribute in any way to our knowledge of Sappho's hymn to Aphrodite?

Question

From what I gather, we alrady have the text of Sappho's Hymn to Aphrodite (alias Sappho 1, the only poem we have complete) complete and uncontroversial (save for the bit in cruces, τίνα δηὖτε πείθω / ἄψ σ' ἄγην, which the P.Oxy. doesn't seem to help settle). I found an image of that papyrus:

[

It only gives a few letters in the middle of lines. So am I right in my impression that this papyrus was, as far as our knowledge of the poem goes, utterly useless, or were there any controversies in the text as reported by Dionysus of Halicarnassus in Περὶ συνθέσεως ὀνομάτων (aka De Compositione Verborum) that I am not aware of and that were settled by deciphering the papyrus and identifying it as Sappho 1?

Update

According to Campbell (see note to this poem), one line of this papyrus reads .]ψ σ. ἄγην[. It should be this line:

In this, I can clearly see ÁΓΗ, surrounded by what has the looks of a C…N. But where is the psi? I cannot find any trace of it in there. Since the psi would be like THE contribution of this papyrus to our knowledge of the poem's text, suggesting the ἄψ σ' found on B.A. and Greek Wikisource, the question now becomes: how did the psi pop up? Can anyone see it in the image? Was something done to the papyrus that made it appear clearly? If so, what?

Update 2

One small contribution, besides the one in the other update (if the psi was actually there), is that, from what Bergk says, all codices had a zeta in ὐπαζεύξαισα, whereas the papyrus clearly has a sigma-delta cluster in the line ]MYΠ̣ ϹΔ€.

Update 3

M.L. West (more info about him here) limits the importance of that psi by attributing it to a possible correction from the following line, and seems to favor Edmonds' solution from the critical note he offers.

Answer 1

One contribution this papyrus certainly gave is at l. 9.

The middle line in the image reads ΜΥΠ̣ ϹΔ€, giving us a σδ cluster, whereas the manuscript tradition, according to Bergk's note, is unanimous on having a ζ there.

The other possible contribution, which I am fairly skeptical about, is "the psi issue". The corrupted l. 19 can be seen in the papyrus as:

Now to me that reads ̣ CÁΓΗṆ, with the C compressed and the N half-cut, and the vestige being more of a blank space. Others have seen a psi in that space, leading to the transcription "ψ̣ σ' ἄγην" and hence the reading "ἄψ σ' ἄγην". I tried to see the psi in the image, and all I got was:

I for one believe this is far too close to the sigma to actually be what was written there. There is something like a mini-psi far down in a sort of subscript placement, but that can hardly (IMHO) be considered an actual letter. So I'm very prone to discarding this psi idea. For other reasons, M.L. West, a very famous linguist I only found out about when I found that link, discards it. This reading, however, is accepted by many (Greek Wikisource, BA, Campbell, these guys).

That just about wraps it up, because the rest of the text was already uncontroversial before this papyrus, AFAICT.

Bonus: papyrus transcription

Here is how I read this papyrus:

ΙΚΙΛ  ̣  ̣  ̣
̤  ̣Λ̤  ̣́  ̣ΛΟ̤  ̣
{...}ẠṂṆẠ
{....}Αθ̣Υ{.}
ẠΤÝΙΔ  ̣
Ϲ€̄ṂΑϹΑÝ
Ỵ€ϹΠẠΤΡ  ̣
 ̣ΥϹΙΟΝΗ̤Λ̤  ̣
ΜΥΠ̣[.]ϹΔ€
Κ̣€̣€Ϲ̤ϹΤΡΟ᷍Υ
ḲΝΑΔĬΝ̤
ỌϹΔΙΑΜ€̣Ϲ̣  ̣  ̣
  ̣ΑΔΕξÏḲΟ
  ̣ΗΔΙΑϹẠ[..]
Ρ̤€ΟΤΤΙ  ̣[.]  ̣
ΥΤ€́{.}A̤{.}[.]M̤
ΟΤΤÍ{.}[.]{.}
A̤I̤N̤  ̣ΛΑI̤
{.}C̣ĂΓΗṆ
ΠΦ

Update

I also realized this papyrus:

• Dispels Edmonds' dual ὤκεε στρούθω with its double sigma, though one sigma is very doubtful;
• Dispels any μειδιάσαισ' idea with its clear ΗΔΙΑϹ.