  [MV18] introduced a fundamental new algorithmic question on stable matching,
namely finding a matching that is stable under two ``nearby'' instances, where
``nearby'' meant that in going from instance $A$ to $B$, only one agent changes
its preference list. By first establishing a sequence of structural results on
the lattices of $A$ and $B$, [MV18] and [GMRV22] settled all algorithmic
questions related to this case. The current paper essentially settles the
general case.
  Assume that instance $B$ is obtained from $A$, both on $n$ workers and $n$
firms, via changes in the preferences of $p$ workers and $q$ firms. If so, we
will denote the change by $(p, q)$. Thus [MV18] and [GMRV22] settled the case
$(0, 1)$, since they adopt the convention that one firm changes its
preferences. Let $\mathcal{M}_A$ and $\mathcal{M}_B$ be the sets of stable
matchings of instances $A$ and $B$, and let $\mathcal{L}_A$ and $\mathcal{L}_B$
be their lattices. Our results are:
  1. For $(0, n)$, $\mathcal{M}_A \cap \mathcal{M}_B$ is a sublattice of
$\mathcal{L}_A$ and of $\mathcal{L}_B$. We can efficiently obtain the
worker-optimal and firm-optimal stable matchings in $\mathcal{M}_A \cap
\mathcal{M}_B$. We also obtain the associated partial order, as promised by
Birkhoff's Representation Theorem, and use it to enumerate these matchings with
polynomial delay.
  2. For $(1, n)$, the only missing results are the partial order and
enumeration.
  3. We give an example with $(2, 2)$ for which $\mathcal{M}_A \cap
\mathcal{M}_B$ fails to be a sublattice of $\mathcal{L}_A$.
  In light of the fact that for $(n, n)$, determining if $(\mathcal{M}_A \cap
\mathcal{M}_B) = \emptyset$ is NP-hard [MO19], a number of open questions
arise; in particular, closing the gap between $(2, 2)$ and $(n, n)$.
