Example of a $\Pi^2_2$ sentence? This question is about logical complexity of sentences in third order arithmetic.  See Wikipedia for the basic concepts.
Recall that the Continuum Hypothesis is a $\Sigma^2_1$ sentence.  Furthermore (loosely speaking) it can't be reduced to a $\Pi^2_1$ sentence, as stated in Emil Jeřábek's answer to Can we find CH in the analytical hierarchy?.
Is there an example of a $\Sigma^2_2$ sentence with no known reduction to a $\Pi^2_2$ sentence?  (Equivalently, a $\Pi^2_2$ sentence with no known reduction to a $\Sigma^2_2$ sentence.)  I mean that there should be no known reduction even under large cardinal assumptions.
I'd prefer an example that's either famous or easy to state.  But to begin, any example will do.
Update: Sentences such as "$\mathfrak{c} \leqslant \aleph_2$" and "$\mathfrak{c}$ is a successor cardinal" are $\Delta^2_2$, meaning that they're simultaneously $\Sigma^2_2$ and $\Pi^2_2$. The reason  is that each such sentence (and also its negation) can be expressed in the form "$\mathbb{R}$ has a well-ordering $W$ such that $\phi(W)$" where $\phi$ is $\Sigma^2_2$.
 A: Here are two non-examples, one erring in each direction:

*

*Too simple: "The continuum is an $\aleph$-fixed point," that is $\mathfrak{c}=\aleph_\mathfrak{c}$. This is equivalent of course to $\mathfrak{c}\ge\aleph_\mathfrak{c}$, which means it can be expressed as "There is an $\mathbb{R}$-indexed family of sets of reals of pairwise distinct cardinalities," which is $\Sigma^2_2$. Contra my original guess, however, this does have a $\Pi^2_2$ equivalent observed by Farmer S in the comments below (and I'll add his argument here later when I have more time).


*Too complicated (so far!): "The continuum is a limit cardinal." This can be expressed in a $\Pi^2_3$ way (which I originally miscounted - thanks to Andreas Blass for bringing this to my attention) as "For every set of reals $X$, either there is a surjection $X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ or there is a set of reals $Y$ such that there is no surjection $X\rightarrow Y$ or $Y\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$," and I don't see how to get a $\Sigma^2_3$ equivalent even granting large cardinals. (In particular, note that "The continuum is $\ge$ some uncountable limit cardinal" is easy to express in a $\Sigma^2_2$ way as "There exists an $\omega$-sequence of sets of reals of strictly increasing cardinality," but this doesn't seem to be useful here.)
Of course, the first example doesn't work, and the second example almost certainly doesn't work. That said, I think this is a good indication that general continuum combinatorics is a good place to look for high-complexity third-order sentences.
A: The Suslin hypothesis is $\Pi^2_2,$ and $T = ZFC + GCH + LC$ (LC an arbitrary large cardinal axiom) does not prove it to be equivalent to any $\Sigma^2_2$ sentence. Suppose toward contradiction $T$ proves SH to be equivalent to $\exists A \subset \mathbb{R} \varphi(A),$ where $\varphi$ is $\Pi^2_1.$ Assume $V \models T.$
We'll use several results from Chapters VIII and X of Devlin and Johnsbraten's The Souslin Problem. There are generic extensions $V[G] \models T+\diamondsuit^*$ and $V[G][H] \models T+SH$ which do not add reals to or collapse cardinals of $V.$ In $V[G][H],$ there is $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ such that $\varphi(A)$ holds and $A' \subset \omega_1$ which codes a bijection between $\mathbb{R}$ and $\omega_1$ as well as $A.$ By downwards absoluteness of $\varphi,$ $A$ witnesses that $V[G][A'] \models SH.$ But we also have $V[G][A'] \models \diamondsuit^*$ by Lemma 4 (pg. 79), which is a contradiction since $\diamondsuit$ negates SH.
A: (As pointed out by @PaulBlainLevy, the following doesn't meet the requirement that it should have no known reduction even under large cardinal assumptions. But I think it's a natural $\Pi^2_2$ statement, so I'll leave it here.)
Consider the statement "For every set of reals $X$, $X^\#$ exists". (Equivalently, "for every set of reals $X$, there is an elementary embedding $L(\mathbb{R},X)\to L(\mathbb{R},X)$".) I claim it's $\Pi^2_2$ but not $\Sigma^2_2$, at least assuming the consistency of ZFC + "For every set of reals $X$, $X^\#$ exists".
(Here I mean that there is a fixed $\Pi^2_2$ formula $\psi$ such that ZFC proves "$\psi$ holds iff $X^\#$ exists for all sets of reals $X$", but this is not the case for $\Sigma^2_2$).
It's $\Pi^2_2$: For given $X$, it is $\Sigma^2_1(\{X\})$ to say that $X^\#$ exists, as $X^\#$ is coded by a real, and one just has to check that for each countable ordinal $\alpha$, the model generated from $\mathbb{R}\cup\alpha$-many indiscernibles is wellfounded, to know that it is correct, and this is all expressed as a projective statement about some set of reals coding everything.
It's not $\Sigma^2_2$ (modulo the consistency mentioned above): For suppose it is, and fix a $\Pi^2_1$ formula $\varphi$ such that ZFC proves that $\exists A\subseteq\mathbb{R}\varphi(A)$ iff $X^\#$ exists for all sets of reals $X$. Assume ZFC + $X^\#$ exists for all sets of reals $X$. Let $A$ witness the $\Sigma^2_2$ statement, and let $A'=(A,W)$ where $W$ is a wellorder of $\mathbb{R}$. Consider $M=L(\mathbb{R},A')$. Then $M\models$ZFC, and $A\in M$, and $\mathbb{R}\subseteq M$, so note the truth of $\varphi(A)$ goes down to $M$. So $M\models\mathrm{ZFC}+V=L(\mathbb{R},A')$+$\exists A\subseteq\varphi(A)$, so models "$(A')^\#$ exists", but this is a contradiction.
