The site's wording prints two questions: whether $\delta_1(n,m)$ is unimodular in $m$, and, for fixed $n$, where it attains its maximum. Its label DISPROVED (LEAN) (page last edited 4 November 2025), which the site defines as solved in the negative, answers a yes-or-no question, and its commentary records only the answer to the first: Cambie's computations for $n=2$ and $n=3$ and Cambie's theorem [Ca25] that the sequence has superpolynomially many local maxima. The curator therefore reads the problem as the unimodality question, and the precise Statement keeps that question alone. Erdős's source supports the reading. In [Er79e], after the bound $\epsilon'(n,m)<c/(\log n)^\alpha$, Erdős writes: "Perhaps $\epsilon'(n,m)$ is unimodular for $m>n+1$, but I know nothing about this. I don't know where $\epsilon'(n,m)$ assumes its maximum." The first sentence is a conjecture; the second is a remark that the site rendered as a question. The change drops the second question from the Statement; nothing else changes. Under the full wording the problem is open: unimodality is disproved, while the maximizing $m$ is known only for $n=1$, where Cambie's Theorem 1 shows that $\delta_1(1,m)$ is non-increasing, so the maximum $1/2$ is attained at $m=3$ and $m=4$; for every $n\ge2$ no recorded source determines it, and that question is recorded as a variant with its own answer under Formulation. Under the precise Statement the problem is disproved, by Cambie's explicit dip $\delta_1(3,6)=7/20>\delta_1(3,7)=1/3<\delta_1(3,8)=38/105$, Cambie's computer check for $2\le n\le20$ and Theorem 3 of [Ca25], recorded as Cambie's claim page (2025). The formal-conjectures file states both questions as parts and marks the maximizing part research open; it counts with the site's wording, not as a second ruling. The "(LEAN)" suffix rests on the Aristotle formalization of the finite example, linked from the claim page and not built here.