Throughout, exp is given by its series exp(x)=∑k≥0xk/k! (The Real Exponential Function), and we use claims 1, 2 and 4 of Basic Properties of the Exponential Function (functional equation, positivity, monotonicity, and exp(u)≥1+u for u≥0). Termwise comparison of convergent series of nonnegative terms, and passage of inequalities to limits, are by claim 1 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences, limits of sums and products by Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences, and limits of absolute values by claim 4 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences.
Step 1 (claim 1). (a) exp(u)≥1+u for all real u. For u≥0 this is claim 4 of Basic Properties of the Exponential Function. For u≤−1 it holds since exp(u)>0≥1+u. For −1<u<0 put v=−u∈(0,1); termwise vk/k!≤vk, and the partial sums ∑k=0nvk=(1−vn+1)/(1−v)≤1/(1−v), so exp(v)≤1/(1−v), whence exp(u)=1/exp(v)≥1−v=1+u.
(b) ∣exp(z)−1−z∣≤21z2exp(∣z∣) for all real z. As exp(z)−1−z=∑k≥2zk/k! (the partial sums differ from those of exp(z) by the two initial terms), the absolute value is at most ∑k≥2∣z∣k/k! (triangle inequality for the partial sums and passage to the limit); for k≥2, k!≥2(k−2)!, so ∣z∣k/k!≤21z2∣z∣k−2/(k−2)!, and comparing partial sums, ∑k≥2∣z∣k/k!≤21z2∑j≥0∣z∣j/j!=21z2exp(∣z∣).
(c) The power inequality. Let x be real and θ≥1 an integer with 2θ∣x∣≤1; then ∣x∣≤21 and 1+x≥21, so
1+x1=1−x+1+xx2≤1−x+2x2=1+y,y:=−x+2x2,
where 1+y≥1−∣x∣≥21>0. As t↦tθ is nondecreasing on [0,∞) (a product of θ nondecreasing nonnegative factors) and 1+y≤exp(y) by (a), (1+x)−θ=(1/(1+x))θ≤(1+y)θ≤exp(y)θ=exp(θy), the last step by the functional equation. Put z=θy; then ∣z∣≤θ∣x∣(1+2∣x∣)≤2θ∣x∣≤1, so by (b) and the monotonicity of exp, exp(z)≤1+z+21z2exp(1). Now z=−θx+2θx2 and z2≤θ2(∣x∣+2x2)2≤θ2(2∣x∣)2=4θ2x2 (as 2x2≤∣x∣), hence
(1+x)−θ≤1−θx+2θx2+2exp(1)θ2x2≤1−θx+8θ2x2,
using exp(1)≤3 (termwise, 1/k!≤2−(k−1) for k≥1 since k!≥2k−1, so exp(1)=∑k≥01/k!≤1+∑k≥12−(k−1)=3, the geometric partial sums being at most 2) and 2θ+6θ2≤8θ2 for θ≥1.
Step 2 (claim 2). The lower bound μs′υ(r)≥(1−ε)μsυ(r)≥21μ>0 of the statement follows from the perturbation hypothesis, so claim 1 of Integer Power Products of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods: Pathwise Identity, Integral Bounds, and the Pair Identity applies to (μ,μ′) with the exponents (1+θ,−θ) (the only negative exponent being that of μ′, bounded below by 21μ), and claim 3 of that lemma (applied with base μ, and separately with base μ′) gives ℓ>0 and ℓ′>0. Fix an integer θ≥1 with 2θε≤1. For s,r,υ put x=x(s,r,υ)=(μs′υ(r)−μsυ(r))/μsυ(r), so that ∣x∣≤ε, 2θ∣x∣≤1 and μs′υ(r)=μsυ(r)(1+x). Then μ~θ,sυ(r)=μsυ(r)(1+x)−θ, and the three integrated total intensities in Eθ are finite integrals over [0,T] of functions which are measurable in s and bounded (the total intensities of μ, μ′ and μ~θ take values in [0,l~μˉ], [0,l~μˉ′] and [0,l~μ~ˉθ] respectively, μ~ˉθ being the bound of μ~θ from claim 1 of Integer Power Products of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods: Pathwise Identity, Integral Bounds, and the Pair Identity, and their sections are measurable, by Causal Intensity on the Observation Record Space and Likelihood of a Causal Intensity on the Observation Record Space), so by the linearity of the integral for integrable functions (claim 2 of Linearity and Monotonicity of the Lebesgue Integral)
Eθ(r)=∫[0,T]∑υ∈Vμsυ(r)((1+x)−θ−(1+θ)+θ(1+x))ds=∫[0,T]∑υ∈Vμsυ(r)((1+x)−θ−1+θx)ds.
By Step 1(c) the bracket is at most 8θ2x2≤8θ2ε2, and 0≤μsυ(r)≤μˉ, so by monotonicity the integrand is at most l~μˉ⋅8θ2ε2 and Eθ(r)≤8l~Tμˉθ2ε2=Eˉθ for every r. Since Eθ is bounded (claim 1 of Integer Power Products of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods: Pathwise Identity, Integral Bounds, and the Pair Identity), there is a real E with E≤Eθ≤Eˉθ on R, and claim 2 of that lemma gives ∫Rℓ1+θℓ′−θdρ≤exp(Eˉθ).
Step 3 (claim 3). Let 0<δ′<1 and θ as in Step 2. Since ℓ,ℓ′>0, L>0 on R. On the set {L<1−δ′} one has (1−δ′)/L>1, hence ((1−δ′)/L)θ>1; off the set the indicator is 0. Therefore, pointwise on R,
ℓ1{L<1−δ′}≤(1−δ′)θℓL−θ=(1−δ′)θℓ1+θℓ′−θ.
The set {L<1−δ′} is measurable (L is measurable by claim 3 of Integer Power Products of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods: Pathwise Identity, Integral Bounds, and the Pair Identity), so the left side, a product of the measurable ℓ with a measurable indicator, is measurable and nonnegative, and the right side is measurable and nonnegative (claim 2 of that lemma); so monotonicity of the integral and the rule ∫cfdρ=c∫fdρ for constants c≥0 (claim 1 of Linearity and Monotonicity of the Lebesgue Integral) together with Step 2 give ∫ℓ1{L<1−δ′}dρ≤(1−δ′)θexp(Eˉθ). Finally 0<1−δ′≤exp(−δ′) by Step 1(a), so (1−δ′)θ≤exp(−δ′)θ=exp(−θδ′) (monotonicity of t↦tθ on [0,∞), as in Step 1(c)), and exp(−θδ′)exp(Eˉθ)=exp(−θδ′+Eˉθ) by the functional equation. ■