The site's wording follows the booklet item [Va99, 7.79] and puts no condition on $\gamma$ or on the $\kappa_\alpha$, and, read as the site words it, the implication is false. For $\gamma=1$ and $\kappa_0=\lambda^+$, the premise $2^\lambda\to(\lambda^+)^{r+1}_1$ says only that $2^\lambda\ge\lambda^+$, which holds, while $\lambda\to(\lambda^+)^r_1$ needs a subset of $\lambda$ of size $\lambda^+$. For $\gamma=2$, $\kappa_0=\lambda^+$ and $\kappa_1=r$, the premise holds: either some $(r+1)$-set has color $1$, or all of $2^\lambda$ is homogeneous in color $0$. The constant coloring of $[\lambda]^r$ with color $0$ refutes the conclusion. Both failures are boundary cases of a dropped range, and the change adds the conditions $\gamma\ge2$ and $\kappa_\alpha>r$ of the Erdős–Hajnal list, which exclude them. Komjáth's Problem 2 ([Ko25b], p. 419) states the question for finite $r$ with $\kappa_\nu>r$ and a condition on $\gamma$ that the site's curator reads as $\gamma\ge2$, taking the printed inequality for a misprint. The curator's reply in the discussion thread points to these conditions rather than accepting a disproof, and the site keeps the label OPEN. The formal-conjectures statement file adds $\gamma\ge2$ and $\kappa_\alpha>r$ and proves the first counterexample as its test lemma erdos_1167.unrestricted_is_false. That lemma is in a statement file, so it is not a formalization link and gets no claim page, and the corpus has not built it. Rafik Zeraoulia gave the first counterexample in a note of 31 January 2026. It answers the site's wording, not the corrected Statement, so it does not count toward the problem's standing; it is credited here and recorded on Zeraoulia's rejected claim page (2026). The problem's standing judges the corrected Statement.