As for the figures on p.621, I think (but I'm not sure) that the problem which Gauss tries to solve in it is (in modern terms): "to find the self-inductance of a single circular loop". This is a very difficult problem in mathematical physics that is often omitted in textbooks on electromagnetism - who usually adhere to the simple problem of calculating the magnetic field and self-inductance of an infinite coil (that is made of an infinite number of nearly circular loops).
What made me make this conclusion is:
- Of course, what Gauss himself writes in his verbal description of fragments 16-17.
- The formula which he arrives involves the term $\log(\frac{8r}{ae^2}) = \log(\frac{8r}{a} )-2$, where $r$ is the radius of the circular coil and $a$ is the radius of the wire which the loop is made of. This is exactly the log term in the modern result for self-inductance of a single circular coil: see this link http://users.telenet.be/minnaert/blog/The_self_inductance_of_a_circular_loop.htm. What makes this thesis stronger is Gauss's words and figure in fragment 17, (although he switches there the notation for the radius of the wire from $a$ to $\rho$). In addition, the factor ''$R$'' (from the modern result) is absent from Gauss's formula because he refers to the induced electric field, not to the induced voltage (so Gauss's formula is derived from the modern result from dividing by $2\pi R$ ).
The only thing that is lacking for complete agreement is the difference between the numerical factors of the two formulas; a $\pi$ is missing from Gauss's. That might be the outcome of a different system of unit that Gauss used (maybe cgs?), but i'm not sure.
i've added here a figure of p.621 from Gauss's nachlass:

Notice: to prevent misunderstandings, the fact that the self-inductance of a single circular loop can be infinite (in the limit $r>>a$) doesn't contradict the finite result for the self-inductance of an infinite coil ($L = n^2\mu_0\pi r^2 $), because the derivation of magnetic field inside an infinite solenoid is valid onle when the distances between consecutive loops are comparable to the radius of the wire from which the coil is made of. Otherwise the assumption that the magnetic field inside the solenoid is uniform is simply incorrect. In the case where $a$ tends to zero, $n$ (the density of the loops) goes to infinity, so one gets consistent results.
Some history:
According to this article - https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/bulletin/04/nbsbulletinv4n1p149_A2b.pdf ("on the self-inductance of circles"), the first to publish a formula for the self-inductance of circle is Kirchhoff in 1864; his formula was the first in a series of more accurate results by Maxwell, Max Wien and others. So Gauss's (unpublished) formula can be interpreted as a first result in this direction. Gauss's fragment 17 contains several additional formulas, one of which is identical to Kirchhoff's.
Update (26.07.2023)
An accidental search in Maxwell's "treatise on electricity and magnetism" led to a surprising find. In p.345-346 of volume 2 of his treatise, Maxwell refers to this calculation of Gauss in the context of the following problem:
To find the form of a coil for which the coefficient of self-induction is in a maximum, when the the total length and thickness of the wire are given.
, and states that the relevant result was first found by Gauss. Gauss's result states that for a coil with circular cross section, the maximal self-induction is obtained when the mean radius $a$ of the coil is $3.22$ times the radius $c$ of the cross section of the coil (the condition for maximality is $a=3.22c$). I guess this result was particulary beneficial for electrical circuits designers, since it allowed the introduction of coil inductors with optimised self-induction.
(note that $a$ is not the arithmetic mean of the radiuses of the toroidal coil, but actually a kind of geometric mean of the radiuses; I am not exactly sure of the details right now. Anyway, I believe the use of the geometric mean was one of Gauss's main innovations in this calculation.)