P(4,1)$P(4,1)$ is true because of 2,3,4,5$2,3,4,5$ but I strongly doubt that P(5,1)$P(5,1)$ is true. Indeed P(4,1)$P(4,1)$ is only true that once and even P(3,1)$P(3,1)$ happens for the last time at 7,8,9$7,8,9$. Of any 210$210$ consecutive integers one is divisible by 2,3,5,7$2,3,5,7$ so P(210,3)$P(210,3)$ fails. I'm sure that can be improved. It does generalize .
As noted in the comments, there are two cases (at least) of 8$8$ consecutive integers each with two distinct prime factors and 12a run of $12$ can be ruled out. Actually it seems extremely unlikely that there are any cases of 9$9$, let alone 10$10$ or 11$11$: Such a run of 9$9$ would have to include 7$7$ integers $3(a-1),2(b-1),*,2^i3^j,*,2(b+1),3(a+1)$ where $a\pm1=2^{i}3^{j-1}\pm1$ and $b\pm1=2^{i-1}3^{j}\pm1$ are two pairs of twin primes (or merely twin prime powers). I would expect only finitely many cases where $2^u3^v\pm1$ are both prime powers (I find 35$35$ such up to $10^{50}$ with $u,v \ge 1$, let alone getting two such pairs as above ( I find 4$4$ cases, 36,144,216$36,144,216$ and $2^{33}3^9$.) This leaves out the requirements that we would also need $2^{i}3^{j}\pm1$ to each have two distinct prime factors (ruling out the smallest and largest) and have at least one of $2^{i}3^{j}\pm4$ to be 4 times a prime power, and more.