The descriptions of the Swashbuckler rogue’s Rakish Audacity feature in XGTE and SCAG disagree. Which is correct?

In the Sword Coast Adventurer’s Guide (p. 136), the second paragraph of the Swashbuckler rogue’s Rakish Audacity feature description reads:

In addition, you don’t need advantage on your attack roll to use your Sneak Attack if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet of you. All the other rules for the Sneak Attack class feature still apply to you.

However, in Xanathar’s Guide to Everything (p. 47), which reprints the Swashbuckler rogue subclass, the description of the Rakish Audacity feature reads:

You also gain an additional way to use your Sneak Attack; you don’t need advantage on the attack roll to use your Sneak Attack against a creature if you are within 5 feet of it, no other creatures are within 5 feet of you, and you don’t have disadvantage on the attack roll. All the other rules for Sneak Attack still apply to you.

I can’t find any acknowledgement of the text change either; I’d imagine that one or the other would have been subject to errata that makes them have the same wording.

Which wording is correct? I’m assuming SCAG since it was printed later, but would like a source.

Additionally, does the SCAG wording mean that the ability can be used with range attacks? I assume that RAI it should not, but I’m having a hard time interpreting "if no creature other than your target is within 5 feet" as meaning that the target must be within 5 feet.

Does Sword of Sharpness’s maximize damage rule apply to a Rogue’s Sneak Attack damage? [duplicate]

If a rogue hits someone with a scimitar of sharpness and the preconditions for sneak attack are in place, does the rogue also get to maximize the damage of sneak attacks?

For reference the Sword of Sharpness states:

When you attack an object with this magic sword and hit, maximize your weapon damage dice against the target. […]

How is the Soul Knife Rogue’s Bonus action attack effected by a multiclass with Monk?

So the Soul knife rogue has a feature as follows:

After you attack with the blade, you can make a melee or ranged weapon attack with a second psychic blade as a bonus action on the same turn, provided your other hand is free to create it. The damage die of this bonus attack is 1d4, instead of 1d6.<

As is, the psychic blade is a simple melee weapon and as such qualifies as a monk weapon.

I think its fairly obvious that the original 1d6 of the blade will increase as a monk weapon would normally do, but does the bonus action damage also increase?

Can another player benefit from the Phantom Rogue’s soul trinkets?

At level 9, the Rogue’s Phantom subclass (Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything) gets the ‘Tokens of the Departed’ feature, allowing them to create ‘soul trinkets’

When a life ends in your presence, you’re able to snatch a token from the departing soul, a sliver of its life essence that takes physical form: as a reaction when a creature you can see dies within 30 feet of you, you can open your free hand and cause a Tiny trinket to appear there, a soul trinket.

These trinkets have a couple of uses, one being:

While a soul trinket is on your person, you have advantage on death saving throws and Constitution saving throws, for your vitality is enhanced by the life essence within the object.

Given that you can have more than one soul trinket at a time (up to your proficiency bonus), it’s tempting to pass them around. It’s unclear whether the quoted soul trinket benefit is a property of the trinket or of the rogue, and hence unclear whether another character holding a trinket would gain advantage on death and Constitution saving throws.

How does a Rogue’s Expertise feature interact with the Phantom subclasses’s “Whispers of the Dead”?

The Phantom subclass from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything has the following feature at 3rd level:

Whispers of the Dead
Whenever you finish a short or long rest, you can choose one skill or tool proficiency that you lack and gain it… You lose this proficiency when you use this feature to choose a different proficiency that you lack.

At 6th level, all Rogues get to choose two skills (or thieves’ tools) for expertise:

Expertise
…choose two of your skill proficiencies, or one of your skill proficiencies and your proficiency with thieves’ tools. Your proficiency bonus is doubled for any ability check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies.

Can you apply expertise to a skill gained from Whispers of the Dead, and what then happens if you choose to gain proficiency in a different skill after a rest?

Why does the rogue’s Greater Weapon Specialization specify legendary proficiency?

The rogue’s level 15 class feature specifies:

Your damage from weapon specialization increases to 4 with weapons and unarmed attacks in which you’re an expert, 6 if you’re a master, and 8 if you’re legendary.

How can a rogue get legendary proficiency in any weapon? As far as I’m aware, only the fighter reaches legendary proficiency with weaponry, but a fighter will never be able to qualify for this feature because it comes directly from the rogue’s list of class features rather than a rogue feat. Consequently, the two states:

  1. Has legendary proficiency
  2. Has access to this feature

seem mutually exclusive. Is there something I’ve missed?

Can unarmed strike work with a rogue’s sneak attack?

So a situation came up last night where a player with a monk/rogue was flanking (I use the optional flanking rules to grant advantage) an enemy. He was armed with a shortsword, but even with advantage, he missed the attack roll and thus did not get to use his sneak damage.

Since he had taken the Attack action with a monk weapon (shortsword), he could make an unarmed strike as a bonus action, as granted by the monk’s Martial Arts feature. He still has advantage on that role since nobody had moved and the attack hit. But then the issue came up; is unarmed strike a finesse weapon? Is it eligible for sneak attack?

I ruled yes and allowed the sneak damage on this attack, but should I have allowed this or strictly should this not have worked?