The site's wording, with "Let $N\geq 1$", asks for the exact value of the smallest non-representable integer $f(N)$ for every $N$, and whether the representable integers form an initial segment for every $N$. That is what Erdős and Graham printed: [ErGr80], p. 39, for $S_n$ the set of integers of the form $\sum_{k=1}^r\frac1{x_k}$ with $1\le x_1<\cdots<x_r\le n$ and $r$ variable, asks "What is the smallest integer not in $S_n$? Is it true that $m\notin S_n$ implies $m+1\notin S_n$?", with no range on $n$. The site reads the problem through Croot's theorem: its label is PROVED, its commentary says the problem "was essentially solved by Croot [Cr99]" and concludes that, with $m_N=\lfloor\sum_{n\le N}1/n\rfloor$, the representable integers are "for all $N$ sufficiently large, either $\{1,\ldots,m_N-1\}$ or $\{1,\ldots,m_N\}$"; the statement file it links as its formalization (formal-conjectures 308.lean, commit 9d259649abe0b02d7a25f7589b872db679b35e21) states the problem as parts.i, $f(N)\in\{m_N,m_N+1\}$ for all large $N$, and parts.ii, the initial-segment property for all large $N$, marks both solved, and keeps the property for every $N\ge1$ as a separate open variant all_N; the site's thread has no comments. The change replaces "Let $N\geq 1$" by "Let $N$ be sufficiently large and $m_N=\lfloor\sum_{n\le N}\frac1n\rfloor$", in the site's own notation, and replaces "What is the smallest integer not representable ...?" by the question whether it equals $m_N$ or $m_N+1$; the second question is unchanged. The answer under the site's reading is yes to both, by Croot's Main Theorem (Mathematika 46 (1999), 359--372; typescript p. 1), which places $n(N)=f(N)-1$ between $\lfloor H_N-\frac92(1+o(1))(\log\log N)^2/\log N\rfloor$ and $\lfloor H_N-\frac12(1+o(1))(\log\log N)^2/\log N\rfloor$ for all large $N$, so that $\{1,\ldots,m_N-1\}\subseteq N(N)\subseteq\{1,\ldots,m_N\}$ and $f(N)\in\{m_N,m_N+1\}$; the site's two displays attach these floors to $f(N)$ where the theorem bounds $n(N)$, an off-by-one in the displays that does not affect the site's consequence sentence. Under the readings the page does not adopt: the exact value of $f(N)$ is decided by the fractional part $\delta_N$ of $H_N$ outside the window $(\frac12+o(1))(\log\log N)^2/\log N<\delta_N<(\frac92+o(1))(\log\log N)^2/\log N$ (the upper threshold lowered to $\frac{\pi^2}3$ by the deduction from Yokota's 2002 Corollary 1 on its result page) and open inside it, where Croot's conjecture (p. 2) that the upper floor is the truth would close it; and whether $N(N)$ is an initial segment for every $N\ge1$ is open, asserted by no source, encoded by OEIS A101877 (the least largest denominator for each integer, nondecreasing in its eight printed terms) and marked research open by the formal-conjectures file. Both stay in Formulation with no claim page. Results about the site's wording, credited and never counted: none; Boris Alexeev's Erdos308.lean (plby/lean-proofs, commit 8822f7ddef30fadbd92e1c6ab4ed897af356af5e, 15 September 2026) states the two-case statement for large $N$, which is the corrected Statement, and is unbuilt here. The page's standing judges the corrected Statement.