If consistent, is existence of a proper class of extendible cardinals provably equivalent to a $Σ^V_5$ statement?
Recall that in ZFC, a cardinal $κ$ is extendible iff for every $λ>κ$ there is an elementary embedding $j$ of $V_λ$ into some $V_μ$ with $\mathrm{crit}(j)=κ$. (In ZF, one also requires $j(k)>λ$, but this does not affect the above definition in ZFC.)
Extendibles are unusual in being a natural large cardinal property with high quantifier complexity (see this question for other examples of high quantifier complexity). The property of being some $V_μ$ is $Π^V_1$ (or $Π_1$ for short), being $λ$-extendible is $Σ_2$, and being extendible is $Π_3$, and so existence of an extendible cardinal is $Σ_4$, and existence of a proper class of extendibles is $Π_5$.
In the other direction, if $κ$ is extendible, then $V_κ ≺_{Σ_3} V$, and thus (assuming consistency) existence of an extendible cardinal is not equivalent in ZFC to a $Π_4$ statement. Analogously, I expect that existence of a proper class of extendibles is not provably (in ZFC) $Σ_5$, but it is easy to be confused by quantifier counting.
Offered in Q/A format as I was able to solve this question while working on its exposition.