It was made clear to me in the post What answer does one get from integrating a Riemannian metric on a sphere for a great circle – does the metric’s non-flatness affect the answer? that a great circle on S2 and a plane circle (formed by a planar intersection at the equator) have the same circumference, and it doesn’t matter if a Euclidean metric or the derived Riemannian metric is used to calculate circumference of a great circle on a sphere. The metrics are the same algebraically and their scalar values are the same. The Riemannian metric is non-flat by virtue of it being on a curved space, S2.
I then found out manifolds such as exotic spheres have unique properties, some involving curvature and the metric. It occurred to me that a plane circle resulting from an intersection of such a sphere would not have the same circumference as that same circle when it resides on the sphere. I do not know what a planar intersection of an exotic sphere looks like, or what the analog of great circle is on such a sphere. I can therefore not specify this question with mathematical accuracy. However, the general idea can be applied to any manifold of dimension four or higher, not just exotic spheres, for arc lengths of curves.
For higher dimensional manifolds do the Riemannian metric and analogous Euclidean metric (from which the Riemannian metric is derived) have different scalar values? Is the Riemannian metric no longer derivable from the Euclidean one for manifolds of dimension 4 or higher, or in special dimensions such as 7D?