Would be convincing to assume this wing was built as it is now, if there were not those disagreeable details.

Pro new: low weight, outer ribs in flying direction, landing gear straight.
Contra new: upper center strip seems to be cut lengthwise and tapered (wing cut and sweep added later), old sewn hinges only covered, blind nuts for reeds servo and rails for pro servo.

The latter is especially strange. The #2 fuse has no holes for reeds servos even though the servo rails seem the same as in #1 fuse. There are only the holes for the pro servos (and a cutout for the cables) sitting across the fuse.

The cut center strip could also mean the dihedral was reduced later, but why is it tapered then? The bottom strip seems uncut and not tapered, but it is not as wide as that of wing #1 (where the blind nuts are in the strip while they are at the strip's edge on wing #3).

BTW, wing #3 seems to have about the same root chord length as #1. I measured the chord length related to the distance between the blind nuts from pictures. Ratio is 3.37 for #1 and 3.18 for #3.

But #2 fuse seems to have different proportions lengthwise. The antenna outlet is far behind the canopy because it is on the trailing edge former. Both visible formers seem to be cut out quite roughly. There are two "half" holes in the TE former (and two corresponding pressure marks on wing #2), and a similar "half hole" is in the fuselage side. Very strange.

The cutouts and holes could be later modifications, regarding the pressure marks are on the later wing #2. Maybe fuse #2 and wing #3 were really built from scratch, together slightly modified, and later the fuse was modified more with wing #2.

Any more bids?