The site's wording asks the question for every family $S$ that meets the hypothesis, and it fails at families that are not closed under subgraphs. Let $S$ consist of one complete graph for each $n$, of order large enough that every $n$-coloring of its edges has a monochromatic triangle. The hypothesis holds, but every graph on two or more vertices has a subgraph on two vertices with no edge, which is not complete and so not in $S$, and a graph on one vertex contains no triangle; so for no infinite cardinal does the graph asked for exist. The failure uses nothing about triangles or colorings. Kevin Barreto found it in the site's discussion thread on 5 January 2026 (comment, with the family of complete graphs on the successive triangle Ramsey numbers), and the site's commentary records it. The change inserts "closed under taking subgraphs" after "a family of finite graphs", in the words of the site's commentary, which records Barreto's note that $S$ is presumably intended to be closed under taking subgraphs, or else a sparse family of complete graphs is a trivial counterexample; the site keeps the label OPEN, which only the hereditary form fits. That is the only evidence for the change, and it is weak: it is the site's own, and no text of Erdős or of the literature independent of a claimant states the hereditary form. Erdős's item 9 of [Er97d] (pp. 83--84), which the site's wording follows nearly word for word, says only "a family of finite graphs" and is silent on closure, so the defect is already in Erdős's text. Barreto's counterexample answers the site's wording (every family $S$ meeting the hypothesis), not the corrected Statement (families closed under taking subgraphs), so it does not count toward the problem's standing; it is credited here and on Barreto's claim page (2026), which is rejected.