The site's wording asks for a maximum where the extremal value its sources mean is a supremum, and the correction rests on the sources cited next: Erdős's 1980 survey, the site's commentary and the formal-conjectures statement. The change replaces "max" with "sup" and "maximum" with "supremum"; nothing else changes. The defect is already in the poser's text: Erdős's 1980 survey, printed p. 96, puts $\varepsilon_m=\max\sum1/n_i$ over all disjoint systems with $n_1>m$, right after recalling Mirsky and Newman's theorem that every such sum is less than $1$, and the site follows him. His own words about the question need a value at every $m$: he asks to determine or estimate $\varepsilon_m$ as well as possible and says that he could not decide whether $\varepsilon_m\to0$, and only the supremum, the extremal value his maximum names, gives one. The site's commentary treats $\epsilon_m$ the same way: it states the bounds $L(m)^{-1+o(1)}<\epsilon_m<L(m)^{-\sqrt3/2+o(1)}$ that [BFV13] imply and the estimate $\epsilon_m=L(m)^{-1+o(1)}$ under the label SOLVED (LEAN), which only the supremum fits, and the formal-conjectures statement, which counts with the site, defines $\epsilon_m$ as an sSup. The form rests on these sources alone; Ho's manuscript and both Lean developments, which settle the corrected Statement, use the same supremum. Allowing the empty family, with sum zero, does not change the supremum.