Σ in Hom. Odyssey 1.93 and 3.313 offer the variant:
πέμψω δ’ ἐς Σπάρτην (vulgate)
Σ in Hom. Odyssey 3.313 attests a similar variant at 1.285:
κεῖθεν δὲ Σπάρτηνδε παρὰ ξανθὸν Μενέλαον (vulgate)
Σ in Hom. Odyssey 13.152 attests Aristophanes’ variant against Aristarchus’ commentary:
μέγα δέ σφιν ὄρος (vulgate)
Circe’s and Arete’s interrogation of Odysseus do not result in lying tales or typologically exact recognition scenes,  although they are just as effective in both signaling and calibrating Odysseus’ identity as he progresses in his journey. Arete’s interrogation is the focus here, but briefly, it should be noted that immediately after Circe interrogates Odysseus (keeping in mind that Odysseus is narrating this tale)—before Odysseus even has a chance to “perform” an answer—she notes his inability to be charmed and interrupts him:
330 ἦ σύ γ’ Ὀδυσσεύς ἐσσι πολύτροπος, ὅν τέ μοι αἰεὶ
φάσκεν ἐλεύσεσθαι χρυσόρραπις Ἀργεϊφόντης,
ἐκ Τροίης ἀνιόντα θοῇ σὺν νηῒ μελαίνῃ
330 YOU are the much-shifting Odysseus—the one whom always
the golden-staffed Argeiphontes kept telling me would come,
upon leaving from Troy with his swift black ship.
Given the illocutionary effect of the formulaic question, I have emphasized the “always” in line 330 in that Odysseus’ tale up to this point is relatively fated, or fixed, from a narrative point of view—or at least the Odyssey presents it this way by disallowing Odysseus to speak of his identity in this interrogation. If there is to be an alteration or re-presentation of a nostos-multiform involving Circe and Odysseus’ identity, it does not occur here. Odysseus typically lies in response to this interrogation on Ithaca but remains mute here, suggesting no need for a calibration, but also no chance to overcome the traditional inertia of his path at this point in his nostos.
More specifically, Arete’s entanglement with the curse of Poseidon connects her directly to the Phaeacian variant at Odyssey 13.152/158. This variant in placed in reference to Nausithous’ prophecy wherein the Phaeacians will someday be “covered” or “concealed” by Poseidon’s “big mountain” for offering “painless” conveyance  to outsiders. Alcinous first presents the curse at 8.567–571 in curiously contingent terms:
φῆ ποτε Φαιήκων ἀνδρῶν εὐεργέα νῆα
ἐκπομπῆς ἀνιοῦσαν ἐν ἠεροειδέι πόντωι
ῥαίσεσθαι, μέγα δ᾿ ἡμῖν ὄρος πόλει ἀμφικαλύψειν.
570 ὣς ἀγόρευ᾿ ὁ γέρων. τὰ δέ κεν θεὸς ἢ τελέσειεν,
ἤ κ᾿ ἀτέλεστ᾿ εἴη, ὥς οἱ φιλον ἔπλετο θυμῷ
He [Nausithous] clamed that someday a well-made ship of Phaeacian men
after returning from an escort upon the misty sea
would be shattered, and a great mountain would conceal our city.
570 Thus declared the old man. The god could either fulfill these things
Or they could be left open-ended, in whatever way it was pleasing to his heart.
Arete’s response in the intermezzo (Odyssey 11.336–341) closes her initial interrogation at 7.238 and fulfills a Penelope-like role the return-tale. As noted, Odysseus abruptly ends his catalogue with Eriphyle who metonymically represents a compressed tale of bad-return. Upon ceasing his story, the audience is described with a highly encoded, traditional phrase ὣς ἔφαθ’, οἱ δ’ ἄρα πάντες ἀκὴν ἐγένοντο σιωπῇ (“So he spoke, and and they all became silent, without words”). The traditional encoding of this formula  introduces a proposal that must not be enacted for its detrimental effect on the tale. Further, the person who responds out of the silence does so authoritatively and offers a rebuke or alteration of the proposal. In this case, it is Arete who responds to Odysseus’ performance, as if to rebuke the stunned assembly, even, for allowing the closure to linger. She says:
“Φαίηκες, πῶς ὔμμιν ἀνὴρ ὅδε φαίνεται εἶναι
εἶδός τε μέγεθός τε ἰδὲ φρένας ἔνδον ἐΐσας;
ξεῖνος δ’ αὖτ’ ἐμός ἐστιν, …
“Phaeacians, how does this man appear to you—
his nature, his stature, and the measured mind within?
Again, he is my guest, …
6.Big Rock, No Rock?
7.Textual Variance and Traditional Flexibility: Political or Poetic?
As discussed above, the Homeric poems emerge from a fluid, multiform tradition wherein fixity only emerges over time as dictated by a variety of performance situations and textualization(s), including but not limited to the political, cultural, and religious context of said performances or textualizations.  Within this framework, Nagy is comfortable with the dual outcomes of the Phaeacian variant existing symbiotically within a tradition that is both diachronic in development and synchronic in reach—the signs of which are captured in the transmission of the text; as Nagy states: 
Nagy’s view is attentive to the multiform nature of the Homeric tradition and he sees this multiformity persisting in the reception of the tradition via textual transmission. His view of the variants places them in distinct stages of development amid this process. So, even if symbiotic, they are chronologically, geographically, and aesthetically distinct.