Throughout, labels are written c = ( σ , γ ) c=(\sigma,\gamma) c = ( σ , γ ) and q = ( c , j ) q=(c,j) q = ( c , j ) denotes an element of L \mathsf{L} L . We use the following facts.
(F1) ∣ v c ∣ = 2 |v_c|=\sqrt{2} ∣ v c ∣ = 2 for every label (v c = δ γ − δ σ v_c=\delta_\gamma-\delta_\sigma v c = δ γ − δ σ has two coordinates ± 1 \pm1 ± 1 and the others 0 0 0 ; claim 1 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on R n \mathbb{R}^n R n ), and ∣ ∑ i a i y i ∣ ≤ ∑ i ∣ a i ∣ ∣ y i ∣ |\sum_ia_iy_i|\le\sum_i|a_i|\,|y_i| ∣ ∑ i a i y i ∣ ≤ ∑ i ∣ a i ∣ ∣ y i ∣ for vectors y i ∈ R l y_i\in\mathbb{R}^l y i ∈ R l and reals a i a_i a i (claims 6 and 5 of that lemma, by induction). For reals u , v u,v u , v and ζ > 0 \zeta>0 ζ > 0 , ( u + v ) 2 ≤ ( 1 + ζ ) u 2 + ( 1 + 1 / ζ ) v 2 (u+v)^{2}\le(1+\zeta)u^{2}+(1+1/\zeta)v^{2} ( u + v ) 2 ≤ ( 1 + ζ ) u 2 + ( 1 + 1/ ζ ) v 2 , since 2 ∣ u v ∣ ≤ ζ u 2 + v 2 / ζ 2|uv|\le\zeta u^{2}+v^{2}/\zeta 2∣ uv ∣ ≤ ζ u 2 + v 2 / ζ by ( ζ ∣ u ∣ − ∣ v ∣ / ζ ) 2 ≥ 0 (\sqrt{\zeta}|u|-|v|/\sqrt{\zeta})^{2}\ge0 ( ζ ∣ u ∣ − ∣ v ∣/ ζ ) 2 ≥ 0 .
(F2) The simplex Δ l \Delta^l Δ l is convex (for x , x ′ ∈ Δ l x,x'\in\Delta^l x , x ′ ∈ Δ l and τ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] \tau\in[0,1] τ ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] the point x + τ ( x ′ − x ) x+\tau(x'-x) x + τ ( x ′ − x ) has nonnegative coordinates summing to 1 1 1 ), and Δ l ⊂ U ~ \Delta^l\subset\tilde{U} Δ l ⊂ U ~ by Twice Continuously Differentiable Extension of an Observation-Rate Family ; so the segment between two points of Δ l \Delta^l Δ l lies in Δ l ⊂ U ~ \Delta^l\subset\tilde{U} Δ l ⊂ U ~ , and the Euclidean distance between them is the norm of their difference.
(F3) Fix ω ∈ Ω \omega\in\Omega ω ∈ Ω and r ∈ R r\in\mathbf{R} r ∈ R . By claims 2(a) and 2(b) of The Record-Driven Causal Intensity of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Joint Measurability of the Record-Frozen Control, the Regularised Recursion Path, Non-Anticipation, and Measurability of the Likelihood (applied through claim 3 of The Synthetic Copy: Independent Cell Structure, Deterministic-Count Clocks, the Copy Measure, and the Smoothed Joint Density of Parameter and Observation Record to the clocks P ( y ) \mathsf{P}^{(y)} P ( y ) and P ♯ \mathsf{P}^{\sharp} P ♯ ), for each y ∈ N 0 L y\in\mathbb{N}_0^{\mathsf{L}} y ∈ N 0 L the path t ↦ Σ ˉ t ( y ) , r ( ω ) t\mapsto\bar\Sigma^{(y),r}_t(\omega) t ↦ Σ ˉ t ( y ) , r ( ω ) is constant on each of finitely many intervals partitioning [ 0 , T ] [0,T] [ 0 , T ] , and t ↦ Σ ˉ t − ( y ) , r ( ω ) t\mapsto\bar\Sigma^{(y),r}_{t-}(\omega) t ↦ Σ ˉ t − ( y ) , r ( ω ) differs from it at only finitely many t t t ; the same holds for Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) \bar\Sigma^{\sharp,r}(\omega) Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) . Taking a common refinement of the finitely many partitions belonging to Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) \bar\Sigma^{\sharp,r}(\omega) Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) and to Σ ˉ ( K ( ω ) − m e q ) , r ( ω ) \bar\Sigma^{(\mathsf{K}(\omega)-\mathsf{m}e_q),r}(\omega) Σ ˉ ( K ( ω ) − m e q ) , r ( ω ) for those q ∈ L q\in\mathsf{L} q ∈ L with K q ( ω ) ≥ m \mathsf{K}_q(\omega)\ge\mathsf{m} K q ( ω ) ≥ m (all of L \mathsf{L} L when ω ∈ G m \omega\in G^{\mathsf{m}} ω ∈ G m ), and splitting off each of the finitely many exceptional points as a degenerate interval [ u , u ] [u,u] [ u , u ] (on which every function is constant), we obtain a finite family of pairwise disjoint intervals with union [ 0 , T ] [0,T] [ 0 , T ] on each of which all these paths and all their left-limit versions are constant, with values in the finite set G N ⊆ Δ l \mathbb{G}_N\subseteq\Delta^l G N ⊆ Δ l . Consequently, if Φ \Phi Φ is any real function of these finitely many path values, the map t ↦ Φ ( ⋯ ) t\mapsto\Phi(\cdots) t ↦ Φ ( ⋯ ) is a finite sum of constants times indicators of intervals, hence bounded and measurable (intervals are Borel sets by Borel Sigma-Algebra on the Real Line ; claims 1 and 2 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions ). All maps of t t t considered below are of this form, possibly multiplied by the components of ψ ^ t \hat\psi_t ψ ^ t (themselves of this form, as linear combinations of differences of path values) or composed with measurable functions of t t t , and are bounded and measurable by claims 2 and 3 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions . In particular, for fixed ( ω , r ) (\omega,r) ( ω , r ) and υ \upsilon υ , the maps t ↦ λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ , r ( ω ) ) t\mapsto\lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r)=N\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp,r}_{t-}(\omega)) t ↦ λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ , r ( ω )) and t ↦ λ t − q , ω , υ ( r ) t\mapsto\lambda^{-q,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r) t ↦ λ t − q , ω , υ ( r ) (equal to N b ~ υ ( Σ ˉ t − ( K ( ω ) − m e q ) , r ( ω ) ) N\tilde{b}^\upsilon(\bar\Sigma^{(\mathsf{K}(\omega)-\mathsf{m}e_q),r}_{t-}(\omega)) N b ~ υ ( Σ ˉ t − ( K ( ω ) − m e q ) , r ( ω )) or to λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) \lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r) λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) ; claim 3 of The Record-Driven Causal Intensity of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Joint Measurability of the Record-Frozen Control, the Regularised Recursion Path, Non-Anticipation, and Measurability of the Likelihood and the definition of the effective removed intensities) are bounded and measurable, with values in [ N b ‾ , N B ~ ] [N\underline{b},N\tilde{B}] [ N b , N B ~ ] for the former (claim 1 of Uniform Pair-Exponent Bound on the Synthetic Copy: Removed-Clock Intensities, the Insertion Response on the Clock-Good Event, and Bounds on the Pair Covariances ) and in [ 0 , N B ~ ] [0,N\tilde{B}] [ 0 , N B ~ ] for the latter.
Step 1 (Claim 1). Fix ω ∈ G m \omega\in G^{\mathsf{m}} ω ∈ G m , r ∈ T ω r\in\mathsf{T}_\omega r ∈ T ω and q = ( c , j ) ∈ L q=(c,j)\in\mathsf{L} q = ( c , j ) ∈ L ; put y = y ( q ) = K ( ω ) − m e q y=y^{(q)}=\mathsf{K}(\omega)-\mathsf{m}e_q y = y ( q ) = K ( ω ) − m e q , which lies in N 0 L \mathbb{N}_0^{\mathsf{L}} N 0 L because its q q q -coordinate is y q = K q ( ω ) − m ≥ 0 y_q=\mathsf{K}_q(\omega)-\mathsf{m}\ge0 y q = K q ( ω ) − m ≥ 0 (its other coordinates being those of K ( ω ) \mathsf{K}(\omega) K ( ω ) ), and satisfies y + m e q = K ( ω ) y+\mathsf{m}e_q=\mathsf{K}(\omega) y + m e q = K ( ω ) . First, G m = G L , D ∩ ⋂ q ∈ L { K q ≥ m } G^{\mathsf{m}}=G_{L,D}\cap\bigcap_{q\in\mathsf{L}}\{\mathsf{K}_q\ge\mathsf{m}\} G m = G L , D ∩ ⋂ q ∈ L { K q ≥ m } belongs to F \mathcal{F} F , since G L , D ∈ F G_{L,D}\in\mathcal{F} G L , D ∈ F by claim 1 of Uniform Pair-Exponent Bound on the Synthetic Copy: Removed-Clock Intensities, the Insertion Response on the Clock-Good Event, and Bounds on the Pair Covariances and each K q \mathsf{K}_q K q is a random variable by claim 1 of The Synthetic Copy: Independent Cell Structure, Deterministic-Count Clocks, the Copy Measure, and the Smoothed Joint Density of Parameter and Observation Record . Since G L , D ⊆ Ω 0 U G_{L,D}\subseteq\Omega^{U}_0 G L , D ⊆ Ω 0 U , claim 2 of The Synthetic Copy: Independent Cell Structure, Deterministic-Count Clocks, the Copy Measure, and the Smoothed Joint Density of Parameter and Observation Record gives P ♯ , c ′ ( ω ) = P ( K ( ω ) ) , c ′ ( ω ) = P ( y ) , c ′ ( ω ) \mathsf{P}^{\sharp,c'}(\omega)=\mathsf{P}^{(\mathsf{K}(\omega)),c'}(\omega)=\mathsf{P}^{(y),c'}(\omega) P ♯ , c ′ ( ω ) = P ( K ( ω )) , c ′ ( ω ) = P ( y ) , c ′ ( ω ) for c ′ ≠ c c'\neq c c ′ = c and
P u ♯ , c ( ω ) = P u ( y ) , c ( ω ) + # { i : y q < i ≤ y q + m , U i q ( ω ) ≤ u } ( u ≥ 0 ) , \mathsf{P}^{\sharp,c}_u(\omega)=\mathsf{P}^{(y),c}_u(\omega)+\#\{i:\ y_q<i\le y_q+\mathsf{m},\ U^{q}_i(\omega)\le u\}\qquad(u\ge0), P u ♯ , c ( ω ) = P u ( y ) , c ( ω ) + # { i : y q < i ≤ y q + m , U i q ( ω ) ≤ u } ( u ≥ 0 ) ,
where the m \mathsf{m} m inserted points U i q ( ω ) U^{q}_i(\omega) U i q ( ω ) , y q < i ≤ y q + m = K q ( ω ) y_q<i\le y_q+\mathsf{m}=\mathsf{K}_q(\omega) y q < i ≤ y q + m = K q ( ω ) , lie in I q ⊆ ( 0 , R ] I_q\subseteq(0,R] I q ⊆ ( 0 , R ] , are pairwise distinct, and differ from every point U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) U^{c,j'}_{i'}(\omega) U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) with 1 ≤ j ′ ≤ J c 1\le j'\le J_c 1 ≤ j ′ ≤ J c and 1 ≤ i ′ ≤ y c , j ′ 1\le i'\le y_{c,j'} 1 ≤ i ′ ≤ y c , j ′ . List the inserted points increasingly as 0 < u 1 < ⋯ < u m 0<u_1<\dots<u_{\mathsf{m}} 0 < u 1 < ⋯ < u m . By the formula defining the deterministic-count clocks in The Synthetic Copy: Independent Cell Structure, Deterministic-Count Clocks, the Copy Measure, and the Smoothed Joint Density of Parameter and Observation Record , on Ω 0 U \Omega^{U}_0 Ω 0 U one has P u ( y ) , c ( ω ) = ∑ j ′ = 1 J c ∑ i ′ = 1 y c , j ′ 1 { U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) ≤ u } \mathsf{P}^{(y),c}_u(\omega)=\sum_{j'=1}^{J_c}\sum_{i'=1}^{y_{c,j'}}\mathbf{1}\{U^{c,j'}_{i'}(\omega)\le u\} P u ( y ) , c ( ω ) = ∑ j ′ = 1 J c ∑ i ′ = 1 y c , j ′ 1 { U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) ≤ u } , whose value at u u u exceeds its left limit ∑ j ′ ∑ i ′ ≤ y c , j ′ 1 { U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) < u } \sum_{j'}\sum_{i'\le y_{c,j'}}\mathbf{1}\{U^{c,j'}_{i'}(\omega)<u\} ∑ j ′ ∑ i ′ ≤ y c , j ′ 1 { U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) < u } exactly when u u u equals one of the points U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) U^{c,j'}_{i'}(\omega) U i ′ c , j ′ ( ω ) , i ′ ≤ y c , j ′ i'\le y_{c,j'} i ′ ≤ y c , j ′ ; so the jump times of the counting path P ( y ) , c ( ω ) \mathsf{P}^{(y),c}(\omega) P ( y ) , c ( ω ) are these points, and none of u 1 , … , u m u_1,\dots,u_{\mathsf{m}} u 1 , … , u m is among them. Hence P ♯ ( ω ) \mathsf{P}^{\sharp}(\omega) P ♯ ( ω ) is exactly the perturbed clock family p + p^{+} p + of Shared-Clock Point Insertion into the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Exact Response Identity, Crude Bound, and Linearisation Defect for p = P ( y ) ( ω ) p=\mathsf{P}^{(y)}(\omega) p = P ( y ) ( ω ) , the label c 0 = c c_0=c c 0 = c and the insertion points u 1 , … , u m u_1,\dots,u_{\mathsf{m}} u 1 , … , u m .
Since r ∈ T ω r\in\mathsf{T}_\omega r ∈ T ω and K q ( ω ) ≥ m \mathsf{K}_q(\omega)\ge\mathsf{m} K q ( ω ) ≥ m , the definition of the tracked records gives ( r , ω ) ∈ G ♯ (r,\omega)\in\mathsf{G}^{\sharp} ( r , ω ) ∈ G ♯ and ( r , ω ) ∈ G ( y ) (r,\omega)\in\mathsf{G}^{(y)} ( r , ω ) ∈ G ( y ) , that is, the data ( P ♯ ( ω ) , a r , x 0 ) (\mathsf{P}^{\sharp}(\omega),a^{r},x_0) ( P ♯ ( ω ) , a r , x 0 ) and ( P ( y ) ( ω ) , a r , x 0 ) (\mathsf{P}^{(y)}(\omega),a^{r},x_0) ( P ( y ) ( ω ) , a r , x 0 ) are conflict-free (claim 1 of The Record-Driven Causal Intensity of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Joint Measurability of the Record-Frozen Control, the Regularised Recursion Path, Non-Anticipation, and Measurability of the Likelihood as applied in claim 3 of The Synthetic Copy: Independent Cell Structure, Deterministic-Count Clocks, the Copy Measure, and the Smoothed Joint Density of Parameter and Observation Record ), and by claim 2(c) of The Record-Driven Causal Intensity of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Joint Measurability of the Record-Frozen Control, the Regularised Recursion Path, Non-Anticipation, and Measurability of the Likelihood the paths Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) \bar\Sigma^{\sharp,r}(\omega) Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) and Σ ˉ ( y ) , r ( ω ) \bar\Sigma^{(y),r}(\omega) Σ ˉ ( y ) , r ( ω ) are the open-loop aggregate solutions for these data. Thus, in the notation of Shared-Clock Point Insertion into the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Exact Response Identity, Crude Bound, and Linearisation Defect , Σ + = Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) \Sigma^{+}=\bar\Sigma^{\sharp,r}(\omega) Σ + = Σ ˉ ♯ , r ( ω ) , Σ = Σ ˉ ( y ) , r ( ω ) \Sigma=\bar\Sigma^{(y),r}(\omega) Σ = Σ ˉ ( y ) , r ( ω ) , Y = Y ( q ) Y=Y^{(q)} Y = Y ( q ) , C + , c ′ = C ♯ , c ′ \mathsf{C}^{+,c'}=\mathsf{C}^{\sharp,c'} C + , c ′ = C ♯ , c ′ and C c ′ = C ( q ) , c ′ \mathsf{C}^{c'}=\mathsf{C}^{(q),c'} C c ′ = C ( q ) , c ′ . The real numbers R ≥ N B T R\ge NBT R ≥ NBT , L ≥ 0 L\ge0 L ≥ 0 , D ≥ 0 D\ge0 D ≥ 0 are those of the setting; the membership ω ∈ G L , D \omega\in G_{L,D} ω ∈ G L , D states precisely hypothesis (D+ ^{+} + ) of Removal Form of the Shared-Clock Insertion Response: Discrepancy on the Enlarged Clock Family, the Base-Clock Insertion Count, and the Linearisation Defect Along Either Path for p + = P ♯ ( ω ) p^{+}=\mathsf{P}^{\sharp}(\omega) p + = P ♯ ( ω ) ; the constant A 0 + A_0^{+} A 0 + of that lemma is 2 ( m + l ( l − 1 ) ( D + m ) ) exp ( 2 l ( l − 1 ) Λ 1 T ) = A 0 \sqrt{2}(\mathsf{m}+l(l-1)(D+\mathsf{m}))\exp(\sqrt{2}l(l-1)\Lambda_1T)=A_0 2 ( m + l ( l − 1 ) ( D + m )) exp ( 2 l ( l − 1 ) Λ 1 T ) = A 0 ; and hypothesis (W) gives Λ 1 T A 0 < L \Lambda_1TA_0<L Λ 1 T A 0 < L . Therefore claims 1 and 3 of Removal Form of the Shared-Clock Insertion Response: Discrepancy on the Enlarged Clock Family, the Base-Clock Insertion Count, and the Linearisation Defect Along Either Path apply: ∣ Y t ( q ) ∣ ≤ A 0 |Y^{(q)}_t|\le A_0 ∣ Y t ( q ) ∣ ≤ A 0 and ∣ C t ♯ , c ′ − C t ( q ) , c ′ ∣ ≤ Λ 1 T A 0 |\mathsf{C}^{\sharp,c'}_t-\mathsf{C}^{(q),c'}_t|\le\Lambda_1TA_0 ∣ C t ♯ , c ′ − C t ( q ) , c ′ ∣ ≤ Λ 1 T A 0 for all t t t and c ′ c' c ′ , and, since the base-clock insertion count of that lemma is # { k : u k ≤ C t ( q ) , c } = ι t ( q ) \#\{k:u_k\le\mathsf{C}^{(q),c}_t\}=\iota^{(q)}_t # { k : u k ≤ C t ( q ) , c } = ι t ( q ) , the first identity of its claim 3 (linearisation along Σ + = Σ ˉ ♯ \Sigma^{+}=\bar\Sigma^{\sharp} Σ + = Σ ˉ ♯ ) is the displayed equation for Y ( q ) Y^{(q)} Y ( q ) with the stated bound on d t ( q ) \mathsf{d}^{(q)}_t d t ( q ) . The bound ∣ Y t − ( q ) ∣ ≤ A 0 |Y^{(q)}_{t-}|\le A_0 ∣ Y t − ( q ) ∣ ≤ A 0 is claim 2 of Uniform Pair-Exponent Bound on the Synthetic Copy: Removed-Clock Intensities, the Insertion Response on the Clock-Good Event, and Bounds on the Pair Covariances . By claim 1 of Removal Form of the Shared-Clock Insertion Response: Discrepancy on the Enlarged Clock Family, the Base-Clock Insertion Count, and the Linearisation Defect Along Either Path (which imports claim 1 of Shared-Clock Point Insertion into the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Exact Response Identity, Crude Bound, and Linearisation Defect ) the map s ↦ Y s ( q ) s\mapsto Y^{(q)}_s s ↦ Y s ( q ) is bounded with measurable components, and by claim 3 of the former so is s ↦ E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) Y s ( q ) s\mapsto\mathcal{E}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_s,a^{r}_s)Y^{(q)}_s s ↦ E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) Y s ( q ) .
Now ψ ^ = 1 N ∑ q w q Y ( q ) \hat\psi=\frac1N\sum_qw_qY^{(q)} ψ ^ = N 1 ∑ q w q Y ( q ) and E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) ψ ^ s = 1 N ∑ q w q E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) Y s ( q ) \mathcal{E}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_s,a^{r}_s)\hat\psi_s=\frac1N\sum_qw_q\mathcal{E}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_s,a^{r}_s)Y^{(q)}_s E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) ψ ^ s = N 1 ∑ q w q E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) Y s ( q ) (the matrix-vector product being linear in the vector) are finite linear combinations of bounded maps with measurable components, hence bounded with measurable components (claim 2 of Arithmetic, Absolute Values, and Pointwise Limits of Measurable Real-Valued Functions ), and ∣ ψ ^ t ∣ ≤ 1 N ∑ q ∣ w q ∣ A 0 |\hat\psi_t|\le\frac1N\sum_q|w_q|A_0 ∣ ψ ^ t ∣ ≤ N 1 ∑ q ∣ w q ∣ A 0 by (F1). For F F F : t ↦ C t ( q ) , c t\mapsto\mathsf{C}^{(q),c}_t t ↦ C t ( q ) , c is nondecreasing (claim 2(a) of Existence, Uniqueness, Causality, and Measurability of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution ) and x ↦ # { i : K q − m < i ≤ K q , U i q ≤ x } x\mapsto\#\{i:\mathsf{K}_q-\mathsf{m}<i\le\mathsf{K}_q,\ U^{q}_i\le x\} x ↦ # { i : K q − m < i ≤ K q , U i q ≤ x } is nondecreasing, so t ↦ ι t ( q ) t\mapsto\iota^{(q)}_t t ↦ ι t ( q ) is nondecreasing with values in { 0 , … , m } \{0,\dots,\mathsf{m}\} { 0 , … , m } ; each level set { t : ι t ( q ) ≥ k } \{t:\iota^{(q)}_t\ge k\} { t : ι t ( q ) ≥ k } is then an interval , so ι ( q ) = ∑ k = 1 m 1 { ι ( q ) ≥ k } \iota^{(q)}=\sum_{k=1}^{\mathsf{m}}\mathbf{1}\{\iota^{(q)}\ge k\} ι ( q ) = ∑ k = 1 m 1 { ι ( q ) ≥ k } is a finite sum of indicators of intervals, hence measurable, and F F F has bounded measurable components. Multiplying the equation for Y ( q ) Y^{(q)} Y ( q ) by w q / N w_q/N w q / N , summing over q q q , and using linearity of the integral componentwise gives ψ ^ t = F t + ∫ [ 0 , t ] E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) ψ ^ s d s + d ^ t \hat\psi_t=F_t+\int_{[0,t]}\mathcal{E}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_s,a^{r}_s)\hat\psi_s\,ds+\hat{\mathsf{d}}_t ψ ^ t = F t + ∫ [ 0 , t ] E ( Σ ˉ s ♯ , a s r ) ψ ^ s d s + d ^ t with d ^ t = 1 N ∑ q w q d t ( q ) \hat{\mathsf{d}}_t=\frac1N\sum_qw_q\mathsf{d}^{(q)}_t d ^ t = N 1 ∑ q w q d t ( q ) , which is the defining identity of d ^ t \hat{\mathsf{d}}_t d ^ t ; by (F1), ∣ d ^ t ∣ ≤ 1 N ∑ q ∣ w q ∣ 2 l ( l − 1 ) ( D + Λ 2 T A 0 2 / N ) |\hat{\mathsf{d}}_t|\le\frac1N\sum_q|w_q|\,\sqrt{2}l(l-1)(D+\Lambda_2TA_0^{2}/N) ∣ d ^ t ∣ ≤ N 1 ∑ q ∣ w q ∣ 2 l ( l − 1 ) ( D + Λ 2 T A 0 2 / N ) , as claimed.
Step 2 (Claim 2). Fix ω ∈ G m \omega\in G^{\mathsf{m}} ω ∈ G m , r ∈ T ω r\in\mathsf{T}_\omega r ∈ T ω and t ∈ [ 0 , T ] t\in[0,T] t ∈ [ 0 , T ] . For q = ( c , j ) q=(c,j) q = ( c , j ) define n q : [ 0 , R ] → { 0 , … , m } n_q:[0,R]\to\{0,\dots,\mathsf{m}\} n q : [ 0 , R ] → { 0 , … , m } by n q ( x ) = # { i : K q ( ω ) − m < i ≤ K q ( ω ) , U i q ( ω ) ≤ x } n_q(x)=\#\{i:\mathsf{K}_q(\omega)-\mathsf{m}<i\le\mathsf{K}_q(\omega),\ U^{q}_i(\omega)\le x\} n q ( x ) = # { i : K q ( ω ) − m < i ≤ K q ( ω ) , U i q ( ω ) ≤ x } . The m \mathsf{m} m points counted lie in I q = ( b j − 1 c , b j c ] I_q=(b^{c}_{j-1},b^{c}_j] I q = ( b j − 1 c , b j c ] (Step 1), so n q ( x ) = 0 n_q(x)=0 n q ( x ) = 0 for x ≤ b j − 1 c x\le b^{c}_{j-1} x ≤ b j − 1 c and n q ( x ) = m n_q(x)=\mathsf{m} n q ( x ) = m for x ≥ b j c x\ge b^{c}_j x ≥ b j c : n q n_q n q is a cell counter in the sense of Injection Weights from a Bounded Profile Along Mean-Field Clocks: Label-Rate Form of the Fluctuation Covariance, Weight Bounds, the Prior Quadratic Form, and the Step-Function Injection , and ι t ( q ) = n q ( x q ) \iota^{(q)}_t=n_q(x_q) ι t ( q ) = n q ( x q ) with x q = C t ( q ) , c x_q=\mathsf{C}^{(q),c}_t x q = C t ( q ) , c . All consumed clock times lie in [ 0 , N B T ] ⊆ [ 0 , R ] [0,NBT]\subseteq[0,R] [ 0 , NBT ] ⊆ [ 0 , R ] by claim 2(a) of Existence, Uniqueness, Causality, and Measurability of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution . Put x c ′ = C t ♯ , c ∈ [ 0 , R ] x'_c=\mathsf{C}^{\sharp,c}_t\in[0,R] x c ′ = C t ♯ , c ∈ [ 0 , R ] for each label c c c . The hypotheses of Injection Weights from a Bounded Profile Along Mean-Field Clocks: Label-Rate Form of the Fluctuation Covariance, Weight Bounds, the Prior Quadratic Form, and the Step-Function Injection hold for the present l l l , m m m , N N N , m \mathsf{m} m , T T T , B B B , R ≥ N B T R\ge NBT R ≥ NBT , cells, ϕ c \phi_c ϕ c , the profile ϖ \varpi ϖ (in the role of its λ \lambda λ ) and Λ \Lambda Λ , so its claim 4 with the cell counters ( n q ) q (n_q)_q ( n q ) q and the family ( x c ′ ) c (x'_c)_c ( x c ′ ) c gives
∣ 1 N ∑ c v c ∑ j = 1 J c w c , j n c , j ( x c ′ ) − F ˉ t ∣ ≤ 2 Λ N ∑ c ( ∣ x c ′ − C ˉ t c ∣ + 3 μ max ) . \Bigl|\frac1N\sum_cv_c\sum_{j=1}^{J_c}w_{c,j}\,n_{c,j}(x'_c)-\bar{F}_t\Bigr|\le\frac{2\Lambda}{N}\sum_c\bigl(|x'_c-\bar{\mathsf{C}}^{c}_t|+3\mu_{\max}\bigr). N 1 c ∑ v c j = 1 ∑ J c w c , j n c , j ( x c ′ ) − F ˉ t ≤ N 2Λ c ∑ ( ∣ x c ′ − C ˉ t c ∣ + 3 μ m a x ) .
It remains to bound F t − 1 N ∑ c v c ∑ j w c , j n c , j ( x c ′ ) = 1 N ∑ c v c ∑ j w c , j ( n c , j ( x c , j ) − n c , j ( x c ′ ) ) F_t-\frac1N\sum_cv_c\sum_jw_{c,j}n_{c,j}(x'_c)=\frac1N\sum_cv_c\sum_jw_{c,j}\bigl(n_{c,j}(x_{c,j})-n_{c,j}(x'_c)\bigr) F t − N 1 ∑ c v c ∑ j w c , j n c , j ( x c ′ ) = N 1 ∑ c v c ∑ j w c , j ( n c , j ( x c , j ) − n c , j ( x c ′ ) ) . Fix c c c and put Ξ = Λ 1 T A 0 \Xi=\Lambda_1TA_0 Ξ = Λ 1 T A 0 (a real number, not to be confused with the simplex Δ l \Delta^l Δ l ), so that ∣ x c , j − x c ′ ∣ ≤ Ξ |x_{c,j}-x'_c|\le\Xi ∣ x c , j − x c ′ ∣ ≤ Ξ for every j j j by claim 1. If n c , j ( x c , j ) ≠ n c , j ( x c ′ ) n_{c,j}(x_{c,j})\neq n_{c,j}(x'_c) n c , j ( x c , j ) = n c , j ( x c ′ ) , then some counted point U i c , j ( ω ) U^{c,j}_i(\omega) U i c , j ( ω ) satisfies min ( x c , j , x c ′ ) < U i c , j ( ω ) ≤ max ( x c , j , x c ′ ) \min(x_{c,j},x'_c)<U^{c,j}_i(\omega)\le\max(x_{c,j},x'_c) min ( x c , j , x c ′ ) < U i c , j ( ω ) ≤ max ( x c , j , x c ′ ) , so it lies in [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] [x'_c-\Xi,x'_c+\Xi] [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] , and since it also lies in I c , j I_{c,j} I c , j , the cell I c , j I_{c,j} I c , j meets [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] [x'_c-\Xi,x'_c+\Xi] [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] . Let J c \mathsf{J}_c J c be the set of j ∈ { 1 , … , J c } j\in\{1,\dots,J_c\} j ∈ { 1 , … , J c } for which I c , j I_{c,j} I c , j meets this interval; only j ∈ J c j\in\mathsf{J}_c j ∈ J c contribute to the sum below, so if J c \mathsf{J}_c J c is empty that sum vanishes and the bound is trivial. If J c \mathsf{J}_c J c is nonempty, let j 1 j_1 j 1 and j 2 j_2 j 2 be its least and greatest elements, and pick z 1 ∈ I c , j 1 ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] z_1\in I_{c,j_1}\cap[x'_c-\Xi,x'_c+\Xi] z 1 ∈ I c , j 1 ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] and z 2 ∈ I c , j 2 ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] z_2\in I_{c,j_2}\cap[x'_c-\Xi,x'_c+\Xi] z 2 ∈ I c , j 2 ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] . For j 1 < j < j 2 j_1<j<j_2 j 1 < j < j 2 one has z 1 ≤ b j 1 c ≤ b j − 1 c < b j c ≤ b j 2 − 1 c < z 2 z_1\le b^{c}_{j_1}\le b^{c}_{j-1}<b^{c}_j\le b^{c}_{j_2-1}<z_2 z 1 ≤ b j 1 c ≤ b j − 1 c < b j c ≤ b j 2 − 1 c < z 2 , so b j c ∈ I c , j ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] b^{c}_j\in I_{c,j}\cap[x'_c-\Xi,x'_c+\Xi] b j c ∈ I c , j ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] ; hence J c = { j 1 , … , j 2 } \mathsf{J}_c=\{j_1,\dots,j_2\} J c = { j 1 , … , j 2 } . Moreover b j 1 c ≥ x c ′ − Δ b^{c}_{j_1}\ge x'_c-\Delta b j 1 c ≥ x c ′ − Δ (the right endpoint of I c , j 1 I_{c,j_1} I c , j 1 is at least a point of I c , j 1 ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] I_{c,j_1}\cap[x'_c-\Xi,x'_c+\Xi] I c , j 1 ∩ [ x c ′ − Ξ , x c ′ + Ξ ] ) and b j 2 − 1 c ≤ x c ′ + Δ b^{c}_{j_2-1}\le x'_c+\Delta b j 2 − 1 c ≤ x c ′ + Δ (the left endpoint of I c , j 2 I_{c,j_2} I c , j 2 is below such a point), so
∑ j ∈ J c μ c , j = b j 2 c − b j 1 − 1 c = ( b j 2 c − b j 2 − 1 c ) + ( b j 2 − 1 c − b j 1 c ) + ( b j 1 c − b j 1 − 1 c ) ≤ μ max + 2 Ξ + μ max \sum_{j\in\mathsf{J}_c}\mu_{c,j}=b^{c}_{j_2}-b^{c}_{j_1-1}=\bigl(b^{c}_{j_2}-b^{c}_{j_2-1}\bigr)+\bigl(b^{c}_{j_2-1}-b^{c}_{j_1}\bigr)+\bigl(b^{c}_{j_1}-b^{c}_{j_1-1}\bigr)\le\mu_{\max}+2\Xi+\mu_{\max} j ∈ J c ∑ μ c , j = b j 2 c − b j 1 − 1 c = ( b j 2 c − b j 2 − 1 c ) + ( b j 2 − 1 c − b j 1 c ) + ( b j 1 c − b j 1 − 1 c ) ≤ μ m a x + 2Ξ + μ m a x
(the middle bracket is at most 2 Ξ 2\Xi 2Ξ , and is negative when j 1 = j 2 j_1=j_2 j 1 = j 2 ). Since every cell has length at least μ min \mu_{\min} μ m i n , which is positive because all cell lengths are, the number of elements of J c \mathsf{J}_c J c is at most 2 ( Ξ + μ max ) / μ min 2(\Xi+\mu_{\max})/\mu_{\min} 2 ( Ξ + μ m a x ) / μ m i n . As ∣ n c , j ( x c , j ) − n c , j ( x c ′ ) ∣ ≤ m |n_{c,j}(x_{c,j})-n_{c,j}(x'_c)|\le\mathsf{m} ∣ n c , j ( x c , j ) − n c , j ( x c ′ ) ∣ ≤ m and, by claim 2 of Injection Weights from a Bounded Profile Along Mean-Field Clocks: Label-Rate Form of the Fluctuation Covariance, Weight Bounds, the Prior Quadratic Form, and the Step-Function Injection , ∣ w c , j ∣ ≤ 2 Λ μ c , j / m ≤ 2 Λ μ max / m |w_{c,j}|\le\sqrt{2}\Lambda\mu_{c,j}/\mathsf{m}\le\sqrt{2}\Lambda\mu_{\max}/\mathsf{m} ∣ w c , j ∣ ≤ 2 Λ μ c , j / m ≤ 2 Λ μ m a x / m ,
∣ ∑ j = 1 J c w c , j ( n c , j ( x c , j ) − n c , j ( x c ′ ) ) ∣ ≤ ∑ j ∈ J c m ∣ w c , j ∣ ≤ 2 ( Ξ + μ max ) μ min 2 Λ μ max . \Bigl|\sum_{j=1}^{J_c}w_{c,j}\bigl(n_{c,j}(x_{c,j})-n_{c,j}(x'_c)\bigr)\Bigr|\le\sum_{j\in\mathsf{J}_c}\mathsf{m}|w_{c,j}|\le\frac{2(\Xi+\mu_{\max})}{\mu_{\min}}\,\sqrt{2}\Lambda\mu_{\max}. j = 1 ∑ J c w c , j ( n c , j ( x c , j ) − n c , j ( x c ′ ) ) ≤ j ∈ J c ∑ m ∣ w c , j ∣ ≤ μ m i n 2 ( Ξ + μ m a x ) 2 Λ μ m a x .
Multiplying by ∣ v c ∣ / N = 2 / N |v_c|/N=\sqrt{2}/N ∣ v c ∣/ N = 2 / N , summing over the l ( l − 1 ) l(l-1) l ( l − 1 ) labels with (F1), and adding the bound from claim 4 of Injection Weights from a Bounded Profile Along Mean-Field Clocks: Label-Rate Form of the Fluctuation Covariance, Weight Bounds, the Prior Quadratic Form, and the Step-Function Injection by the triangle inequality gives claim 2.
Step 3 (Claim 3). Fix ω ∈ Ω \omega\in\Omega ω ∈ Ω and r ∈ R r\in\mathbf{R} r ∈ R . By claim 1 of Uniform Pair-Exponent Bound on the Synthetic Copy: Removed-Clock Intensities, the Insertion Response on the Clock-Good Event, and Bounds on the Pair Covariances , λ ♯ , ω \lambda^{\sharp,\omega} λ ♯ , ω is a causal intensity with bound N B ~ N\tilde{B} N B ~ and λ ♯ , ω , υ ≥ N b ‾ > 0 \lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}\ge N\underline{b}>0 λ ♯ , ω , υ ≥ N b > 0 (hypothesis (OC)), each λ − q , ω \lambda^{-q,\omega} λ − q , ω is a causal intensity with bound N B ~ N\tilde{B} N B ~ , and Pair Expansion of the Weighted Likelihood-Ratio Square: Pair Covariances of Causal-Intensity Likelihoods, the Exact Expansion, and Its First-Order Form applies with base λ ♯ , ω \lambda^{\sharp,\omega} λ ♯ , ω and perturbed intensities ( λ − q , ω ) q (\lambda^{-q,\omega})_q ( λ − q , ω ) q ; its pair exponents are
E q q ′ ω ( r ) = ∫ [ 0 , T ] ∑ υ = 1 l ~ ( λ t − q , ω , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) ) ( λ t − q ′ , ω , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) ) λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) d t , E^{\omega}_{qq'}(r)=\int_{[0,T]}\sum_{\upsilon=1}^{\tilde{l}}\frac{\bigl(\lambda^{-q,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r)-\lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r)\bigr)\bigl(\lambda^{-q',\omega,\upsilon}_t(r)-\lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r)\bigr)}{\lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r)}\,dt , E q q ′ ω ( r ) = ∫ [ 0 , T ] υ = 1 ∑ l ~ λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) ( λ t − q , ω , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) ) ( λ t − q ′ , ω , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) ) d t ,
real numbers by its claim 1. By (F3) the maps t ↦ λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) t\mapsto\lambda^{\sharp,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r) t ↦ λ t ♯ , ω , υ ( r ) and t ↦ λ t − q , ω , υ ( r ) t\mapsto\lambda^{-q,\omega,\upsilon}_t(r) t ↦ λ t − q , ω , υ ( r ) are bounded and measurable, the denominators lie in [ N b ‾ , N B ~ ] [N\underline{b},N\tilde{B}] [ N b , N B ~ ] , and reciprocals of such maps are bounded and measurable (compose with the sequentially continuous map z ↦ 1 / z z\mapsto1/z z ↦ 1/ z on [ N b ‾ , ∞ ) [N\underline{b},\infty) [ N b , ∞ ) , Sequentially Continuous Functions of Measurable Euclidean Maps are Measurable ); so every integrand below is bounded and measurable, hence integrable on [ 0 , T ] [0,T] [ 0 , T ] . Multiplying by w q w q ′ w_qw_{q'} w q w q ′ , summing over q , q ′ q,q' q , q ′ , using linearity of the integral and the identity ∑ q ∑ q ′ w q w q ′ a q a q ′ = ( ∑ q w q a q ) 2 \sum_{q}\sum_{q'}w_qw_{q'}a_qa_{q'}=(\sum_qw_qa_q)^{2} ∑ q ∑ q ′ w q w q ′ a q a q ′ = ( ∑ q w q a q ) 2 for real numbers a q a_q a q gives the displayed formula for Q ω ( r ) \mathcal{Q}^{\omega}(r) Q ω ( r ) ; its integrand is nonnegative, so Q ω ( r ) ≥ 0 \mathcal{Q}^{\omega}(r)\ge0 Q ω ( r ) ≥ 0 by monotonicity.
Now let ω ∈ G m \omega\in G^{\mathsf{m}} ω ∈ G m and r ∈ T ω r\in\mathsf{T}_\omega r ∈ T ω , and let ζ > 0 \zeta>0 ζ > 0 be real. Fix t ∈ [ 0 , T ] t\in[0,T] t ∈ [ 0 , T ] , υ \upsilon υ and q = ( c , j ) q=(c,j) q = ( c , j ) , and put x = Σ ˉ t − ♯ x=\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_{t-} x = Σ ˉ t − ♯ and x ′ = Σ ˉ t − ( y ( q ) ) x'=\bar\Sigma^{(y^{(q)})}_{t-} x ′ = Σ ˉ t − ( y ( q ) ) , both in G N ⊆ Δ l \mathbb{G}_N\subseteq\Delta^l G N ⊆ Δ l , with x ′ − x = − Y t − ( q ) / N x'-x=-Y^{(q)}_{t-}/N x ′ − x = − Y t − ( q ) / N . By claim 3 of The Record-Driven Causal Intensity of the Open-Loop Aggregate Solution: Joint Measurability of the Record-Frozen Control, the Regularised Recursion Path, Non-Anticipation, and Measurability of the Likelihood (through claim 3 of The Synthetic Copy: Independent Cell Structure, Deterministic-Count Clocks, the Copy Measure, and the Smoothed Joint Density of Parameter and Observation Record ) and the definition of the effective removed intensities (note K q ( ω ) ≥ m \mathsf{K}_q(\omega)\ge\mathsf{m} K q ( ω ) ≥ m ), λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( x ) = N b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) \lambda^{\sharp,\upsilon}_t(r)=N\tilde{b}^\upsilon(x)=N\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x) λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( x ) = N b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) and λ t − q , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( x ′ ) = N b ~ ˉ υ ( x ′ ) \lambda^{-q,\upsilon}_t(r)=N\tilde{b}^\upsilon(x')=N\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x') λ t − q , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( x ′ ) = N b ~ ˉ υ ( x ′ ) , using that b ~ ˉ \bar{\tilde{b}} b ~ ˉ agrees with b ~ \tilde{b} b ~ on Δ l \Delta^l Δ l (claim (i) of Regularity and Derivative Bounds of the Extended Aggregate Observation Drift ). Apply part (ii) of Multivariate Taylor Expansion with Uniform Second-Order Remainder on the open set U ~ ⊆ R l \tilde{U}\subseteq\mathbb{R}^l U ~ ⊆ R l to f = b ~ ˉ υ f=\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon f = b ~ ˉ υ , which is of class C 2 C^2 C 2 on U ~ \tilde{U} U ~ by claim (i) of Regularity and Derivative Bounds of the Extended Aggregate Observation Drift , with the points x x x and x ′ x' x ′ (segment in Δ l ⊂ U ~ \Delta^l\subset\tilde{U} Δ l ⊂ U ~ by (F2)) and M 2 = 3 K ~ M_2=3\tilde{K} M 2 = 3 K ~ (claim (iii) of Regularity and Derivative Bounds of the Extended Aggregate Observation Drift bounds the second partial derivatives by 3 K ~ 3\tilde{K} 3 K ~ on Δ l \Delta^l Δ l , hence on the segment): with h = x ′ − x \mathsf{h}=x'-x h = x ′ − x (coordinates h γ \mathsf{h}^{\gamma} h γ ) and, the partial derivatives ∂ i \partial_i ∂ i of the Taylor lemma being the present ∂ γ \partial_\gamma ∂ γ (n = l n=l n = l ), ∑ γ = 1 l ∂ γ b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) h γ = g υ ( x ) ⋅ h \sum_{\gamma=1}^{l}\partial_\gamma\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x)\mathsf{h}^{\gamma}=g_\upsilon(x)\cdot\mathsf{h} ∑ γ = 1 l ∂ γ b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) h γ = g υ ( x ) ⋅ h ,
∣ b ~ ˉ υ ( x ′ ) − b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) − g υ ( x ) ⋅ h ∣ ≤ 1 2 l 3 K ~ ∣ h ∣ 2 = 3 l K ~ 2 ∣ Y t − ( q ) ∣ 2 N 2 . \bigl|\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x')-\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x)-g_\upsilon(x)\cdot\mathsf{h}\bigr|\le\tfrac12\,l\,3\tilde{K}\,|\mathsf{h}|^{2}=\frac{3l\tilde{K}}{2}\frac{|Y^{(q)}_{t-}|^{2}}{N^{2}} . b ~ ˉ υ ( x ′ ) − b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) − g υ ( x ) ⋅ h ≤ 2 1 l 3 K ~ ∣ h ∣ 2 = 2 3 l K ~ N 2 ∣ Y t − ( q ) ∣ 2 .
Multiplying by N N N and using N h = − Y t − ( q ) N\mathsf{h}=-Y^{(q)}_{t-} N h = − Y t − ( q ) and ∣ Y t − ( q ) ∣ ≤ A 0 |Y^{(q)}_{t-}|\le A_0 ∣ Y t − ( q ) ∣ ≤ A 0 (claim 1), we get λ t − q , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) = − g υ ( x ) ⋅ Y t − ( q ) + r e m t ( q ) , υ \lambda^{-q,\upsilon}_t(r)-\lambda^{\sharp,\upsilon}_t(r)=-g_\upsilon(x)\cdot Y^{(q)}_{t-}+\mathrm{rem}^{(q),\upsilon}_t λ t − q , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) = − g υ ( x ) ⋅ Y t − ( q ) + rem t ( q ) , υ , where r e m t ( q ) , υ = N ( b ~ ˉ υ ( x ′ ) − b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) ) + g υ ( x ) ⋅ Y t − ( q ) \mathrm{rem}^{(q),\upsilon}_t=N\bigl(\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x')-\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x)\bigr)+g_\upsilon(x)\cdot Y^{(q)}_{t-} rem t ( q ) , υ = N ( b ~ ˉ υ ( x ′ ) − b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) ) + g υ ( x ) ⋅ Y t − ( q ) satisfies ∣ r e m t ( q ) , υ ∣ ≤ 3 l K ~ A 0 2 / ( 2 N ) |\mathrm{rem}^{(q),\upsilon}_t|\le3l\tilde{K}A_0^{2}/(2N) ∣ rem t ( q ) , υ ∣ ≤ 3 l K ~ A 0 2 / ( 2 N ) . Multiplying by w q w_q w q and summing over q q q ,
∑ q w q ( λ t − q , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) ) = − N g υ ( x ) ⋅ ψ ^ t − + R e m t υ , R e m t υ = ∑ q w q r e m t ( q ) , υ , ∣ R e m t υ ∣ ≤ ∥ w ∥ 1 3 l K ~ A 0 2 2 N = : Z , \sum_qw_q\bigl(\lambda^{-q,\upsilon}_t(r)-\lambda^{\sharp,\upsilon}_t(r)\bigr)=-N\,g_\upsilon(x)\cdot\hat\psi_{t-}+\mathrm{Rem}^{\upsilon}_t,\qquad \mathrm{Rem}^{\upsilon}_t=\sum_qw_q\,\mathrm{rem}^{(q),\upsilon}_t,\qquad |\mathrm{Rem}^{\upsilon}_t|\le\lVert w\rVert_1\frac{3l\tilde{K}A_0^{2}}{2N}=:\mathsf{Z}, q ∑ w q ( λ t − q , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) ) = − N g υ ( x ) ⋅ ψ ^ t − + Rem t υ , Rem t υ = q ∑ w q rem t ( q ) , υ , ∣ Rem t υ ∣ ≤ ∥ w ∥ 1 2 N 3 l K ~ A 0 2 =: Z ,
by the bilinearity of the dot product. By (F1) with u = − N g υ ( x ) ⋅ ψ ^ t − u=-Ng_\upsilon(x)\cdot\hat\psi_{t-} u = − N g υ ( x ) ⋅ ψ ^ t − and v = R e m t υ v=\mathrm{Rem}^{\upsilon}_t v = Rem t υ , and since λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( x ) ≥ N b ‾ \lambda^{\sharp,\upsilon}_t(r)=N\tilde{b}^\upsilon(x)\ge N\underline{b} λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) = N b ~ υ ( x ) ≥ N b ,
( ∑ q w q ( λ t − q , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) ) ) 2 λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) ≤ ( 1 + ζ ) N ( g υ ( x ) ⋅ ψ ^ t − ) 2 b ~ υ ( x ) + ( 1 + 1 ζ ) Z 2 N b ‾ . \frac{\bigl(\sum_qw_q(\lambda^{-q,\upsilon}_t(r)-\lambda^{\sharp,\upsilon}_t(r))\bigr)^{2}}{\lambda^{\sharp,\upsilon}_t(r)}\le(1+\zeta)\,\frac{N\,(g_\upsilon(x)\cdot\hat\psi_{t-})^{2}}{\tilde{b}^\upsilon(x)}+\Bigl(1+\frac1{\zeta}\Bigr)\frac{\mathsf{Z}^{2}}{N\underline{b}} . λ t ♯ , υ ( r ) ( ∑ q w q ( λ t − q , υ ( r ) − λ t ♯ , υ ( r )) ) 2 ≤ ( 1 + ζ ) b ~ υ ( x ) N ( g υ ( x ) ⋅ ψ ^ t − ) 2 + ( 1 + ζ 1 ) N b Z 2 .
Summing over υ \upsilon υ and using the identity z ⋅ ( D ~ ( x ) z ) = ∑ γ , δ D ~ γ δ ( x ) z γ z δ = ∑ υ ( ∑ γ ∂ γ b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) z γ ) 2 / b ~ υ ( x ) = ∑ υ ( g υ ( x ) ⋅ z ) 2 / b ~ υ ( x ) z\cdot(\tilde{D}(x)z)=\sum_{\gamma,\delta}\tilde{D}^{\gamma\delta}(x)z^{\gamma}z^{\delta}=\sum_\upsilon\bigl(\sum_\gamma\partial_\gamma\bar{\tilde{b}}^\upsilon(x)z^{\gamma}\bigr)^{2}/\tilde{b}^\upsilon(x)=\sum_\upsilon(g_\upsilon(x)\cdot z)^{2}/\tilde{b}^\upsilon(x) z ⋅ ( D ~ ( x ) z ) = ∑ γ , δ D ~ γ δ ( x ) z γ z δ = ∑ υ ( ∑ γ ∂ γ b ~ ˉ υ ( x ) z γ ) 2 / b ~ υ ( x ) = ∑ υ ( g υ ( x ) ⋅ z ) 2 / b ~ υ ( x ) for z ∈ R l z\in\mathbb{R}^l z ∈ R l (from the entries of D ~ \tilde{D} D ~ and the matrix-vector product ), the integrand of Q ω ( r ) \mathcal{Q}^{\omega}(r) Q ω ( r ) at t t t is at most ( 1 + ζ ) N ψ ^ t − ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ ) ψ ^ t − ) + ( 1 + 1 / ζ ) l ~ Z 2 / ( N b ‾ ) (1+\zeta)N\,\hat\psi_{t-}\cdot(\tilde{D}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_{t-})\hat\psi_{t-})+(1+1/\zeta)\tilde{l}\mathsf{Z}^{2}/(N\underline{b}) ( 1 + ζ ) N ψ ^ t − ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ ) ψ ^ t − ) + ( 1 + 1/ ζ ) l ~ Z 2 / ( N b ) . Both sides are bounded measurable functions of t t t by (F3), so integrating over [ 0 , T ] [0,T] [ 0 , T ] (monotonicity, the restricted Lebesgue measure of [ 0 , T ] [0,T] [ 0 , T ] being T T T ) gives
Q ω ( r ) ≤ ( 1 + ζ ) N ∫ [ 0 , T ] ψ ^ t − ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ ) ψ ^ t − ) d t + ( 1 + 1 ζ ) l ~ T Z 2 N b ‾ , l ~ T Z 2 N b ‾ = 9 l ~ l 2 K ~ 2 T ∥ w ∥ 1 2 A 0 4 4 N 3 b ‾ . \mathcal{Q}^{\omega}(r)\le(1+\zeta)N\int_{[0,T]}\hat\psi_{t-}\cdot\bigl(\tilde{D}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_{t-})\hat\psi_{t-}\bigr)\,dt+\Bigl(1+\frac1{\zeta}\Bigr)\frac{\tilde{l}\,T\,\mathsf{Z}^{2}}{N\underline{b}},\qquad \frac{\tilde{l}T\mathsf{Z}^{2}}{N\underline{b}}=\frac{9\,\tilde{l}\,l^{2}\tilde{K}^{2}T\lVert w\rVert_1^{2}A_0^{4}}{4N^{3}\underline{b}} . Q ω ( r ) ≤ ( 1 + ζ ) N ∫ [ 0 , T ] ψ ^ t − ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ ) ψ ^ t − ) d t + ( 1 + ζ 1 ) N b l ~ T Z 2 , N b l ~ T Z 2 = 4 N 3 b 9 l ~ l 2 K ~ 2 T ∥ w ∥ 1 2 A 0 4 .
Finally, by (F3) the two functions t ↦ ψ ^ t − ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ ) ψ ^ t − ) t\mapsto\hat\psi_{t-}\cdot(\tilde{D}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_{t-})\hat\psi_{t-}) t ↦ ψ ^ t − ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t − ♯ ) ψ ^ t − ) and t ↦ ψ ^ t ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t ♯ ) ψ ^ t ) t\mapsto\hat\psi_t\cdot(\tilde{D}(\bar\Sigma^{\sharp}_t)\hat\psi_t) t ↦ ψ ^ t ⋅ ( D ~ ( Σ ˉ t ♯ ) ψ ^ t ) are bounded and measurable and differ only at the finitely many exceptional points of (F3), a set E 0 E_0 E 0 of Lebesgue measure 0 0 0 (a finite union of singletons [ u , u ] [u,u] [ u , u ] , claim 4 there); both functions are nonnegative (the identity above exhibits the quadratic form as a sum of squares over positive denominators), so by claim 6 of Restricted Lebesgue Measure and Integral Toolkit on a Compact Interval with D 0 = [ 0 , T ] ∖ E 0 D_0=[0,T]\setminus E_0 D 0 = [ 0 , T ] ∖ E 0 , on which they agree, their integrals over [ 0 , T ] [0,T] [ 0 , T ] coincide. This yields the bound of claim 3 in the stated form.