I'm trying to come up with a good explanation for my students of why the finite lattice representation problem is difficult. I've already shown that the "greedy approach" to representing the lattice drawn in this post as the congruence lattice on a finite algebra - namely, realize the lattice as a sublattice of a lattice of partitions on some large enough finite set $X$, and then look at the algebra on $X$ given by all functions respecting each partition in that sublattice - breaks down.
I'd now like to explain why this doesn't lead to an easy negative solution. Towards that end:
Is there a not-too-hard-to-verify example of a bounded lattice $L$ such that
$L$ is isomorphic to the congruence lattice of some finite algebra, but
the smallest $n$ such that $L$ embeds into the bounded lattice of partitions of $\{1,...,n\}$ is strictly less than the smallest size of an algebra with congruence lattice $\cong L$?
Essentially, a concrete example of this would give a convincing argument that the failure of the greedy strategy doesn't actually tell us much.