The site's wording, as accessed 2026-09-04, places no bound on $n$, and its first question fails for every $n\le4$. The smallest substantive failure is at $n=4$: two unit equilateral triangles sharing an edge (a rhombus) give five pairs at distance $1$ and one pair at distance $\sqrt3$, so only the diameter occurs between at most $4$ pairs. For $n\le3$ the failure is degenerate: one point determines no distance, two points one, and an equilateral triangle one. No failure is recorded for any $n\ge5$, so these are boundary failures. The change inserts "$\geq 5$" after "a set of $n$"; nothing else changes, and the second question, which concerns large $n$, is unaffected. The form is the poser's own. Erdős and Fishburn [ErFi95] (Section 5, pp. 145-146) note that the second diagram of their Fig. 1 (p. 143), this rhombus, has every distance below the diameter occurring more than $n$ times, attribute the conjecture to Erdős and Pach [ErPa90], and state it as their Conjecture 4 (p. 146): "There is no $X$ for $n\geq5$ such that $r_k>n$ for every interpoint distance less than $\delta$", which with the Hopf–Pannwitz bound on the diameter [HoPa34] is the first question for $n\ge5$; the library card records the paper. Erdős states it again with Pach in [Er97b] (item 11, p. 231), after Pannwitz's bound on the diameter: "can it happen that for $n>4$ every other distance occurs more than $n$ times? We believe that the answer is no!"; the library card records the item. The site's curator states the same form in the site's commentary under the label OPEN: "Erdős [Er84c] believed that for $n\geq 5$ there must always exist at least two such distances. This is false for $n=4$", with the rhombus as witness. Clemen, Dumitrescu and Liu state it as Erdős's Conjecture 1.1 ([CDL25], arXiv:2505.04283v5, p. 2), "Let $n\geq5$", and add that "the condition $n\geq5$ is necessary" because of the rhombus; their theorems settle only special cases, so their statement is independent of any claim that would settle the corrected Statement. The copy of [Er84c] read for its library card (pp. 134-135) gives the Pannwitz bound on the diameter and questions on equal multiplicities but no statement of this question, so the site's and [CDL25]'s attribution to it is not confirmed there; [ErPa90] and [Er97e] are not held. The defect is the site's: the poser's statements read here carry the bound. The form was fixed from these sources before reading which results settle it. The counterexample at $n=4$ is recorded by the curator, by [CDL25] and in [ErFi95] itself; it settles no instance of the corrected Statement and counts for nothing. The problem's standing judges the corrected Statement.