Reason: First publication: proof of the to-go comparison lemma.
Proof
Throughout fix t0∈[0,T) and write T♯=T−t0; integrals over compact intervals are Lebesgue integrals as in the statement, and linearity and monotonicity of the integral are used freely. By claim 1 of the time-shift lemma, (S♯,A♯,P♯) is a stationary mean-field triple for the shifted data (same β, (L,G) and extensions, horizon T♯), and ∑δ=1l∣Pt♯δ∣≤CP for all t∈[0,T♯]; so the number CP fixed in the statement is an admissible choice of the constant CP of the first-order expansion lemma for the shifted triple, and the constants M2 and C2 of that lemma for the shifted triple coincide with those of the statement. The control set A is nonempty, compact and convex as part of the data of the affine-controlled family, as recorded in the attainment theorem, so the expansion lemma applies to the shifted triple, its conclusion (b) included. Write Ht♯(Σ,α) and ∂γHt♯(Σ,α) for the two-argument mean-field Hamiltonian and its state derivative coefficients of the expansion lemma for the shifted triple; this extends the one-argument Ht♯ adopted from the time-shift lemma, in the sense that Ht♯(a)=Ht♯(St♯,a) for a∈V, as recorded in the expansion lemma.
Step 1: proof of conclusion 1. Fix x∈Δl. By claim 3 of the time-shift lemma, [A♯]∈UA[T♯] with admissible representative A♯, and S♯=S[T♯](St0,[A♯]). By the definition of the optimal value, Jx∗[T♯] is the infimum of the value set Vx[T♯] (notation of the time-shift lemma), hence a lower bound of it, so
Jx∗[T♯]≤F[T♯](x,[A♯]).
Write x♭=S[T♯](x,[A♯]) for the flow of the horizon-T♯ instance from x under the same control, and yt=xt♭−St♯ for t∈[0,T♯].
(1a) The pair (x♭,A♯) is an admissible pair for the shifted triple in the sense of the expansion lemma: by claim 2 of the flow stability lemma for the horizon-T♯ instance and claim 1 of the existence and uniqueness theorem (initial value x, control A♯), x♭ is continuous with values in Δl and satisfies xt♭γ=xγ+∫[0,t]b^γ(xs♭,As♯)ds for all t and γ; since xs♭∈Δl and As♯∈A, claim 6 of the affine rate-family lemma gives b^γ(xs♭,As♯)=bγ(xs♭,As♯), so this is the admissibility equation of the expansion lemma; and the components of A♯ are continuous (claim 1 of the time-shift lemma), hence measurable by claim 3 of the toolkit.
(1b) Exact identity. Conclusion (a) of the expansion lemma, applied to the shifted triple and the pair (x♭,A♯) — whose control is the control of the triple — gives
and J[(x♭),(A♯)] is the cost of the admissible pair defined there.
(1c) Pointwise bounds. Fix t∈[0,T♯]. The segment from (St♯,At♯) to (xt♭,At♯) lies in Δl×A — for τ∈[0,1] the point τxt♭+(1−τ)St♯ has nonnegative coordinates summing to 1 — hence in the open sets Uc×Rm and U×V, because Δl⊂Uc, Δl⊂U and A⊆V by the costextension definitions. Its difference vector has components ytγ in the first l coordinates and 0 in the last m, with Euclidean length ∣yt∣. Apply part (ii) of the multivariate Taylor lemma with n=l+m along this segment to f=Lˉ on Uc×Rm, whose second-order partial derivatives are bounded by Kc there (clause 3 of the cost extension definition), and to each f=bˉδ on U×V, whose second-order partial derivatives are bounded by 3lK on Δl×V (part (iii) of the regularity of the extended aggregate state drift), the segment lying in these sets as just shown. Multiplying the bˉδ estimates by −Pt♯δ, summing over δ, adding the Lˉ estimate, and using ∑δ∣Pt♯δ∣≤CP and the definition of H♯ and ∂γH♯ in the expansion lemma:
∣IIt∣≤21(l+m)(Kc+3lKCP)∣yt∣2=C2∣yt∣2.
For the terminal term, the second display of conclusion (b) of the expansion lemma for the shifted triple, at Σ=xT♯♭∈Δl, gives ∣G∣≤2lKc∣yT♯∣2.
(1d) Flow bound. Apply claim 4 of the flow stability lemma for the horizon-T♯ instance with (x0,ξ)=(St0,[A♯]) and (x0′,ξ′)=(x,[A♯]): the functionals of claim 3 there satisfy grγ(ξ′)=⟨ξ′−ξ,wγ,r⟩L2=0 for all γ and r, since ξ′=ξ, so the constant that claim 4 requires as a bound for them (written G there; in this proof that letter denotes the terminal cost everywhere else) may be taken to be 0, and with S[T♯](St0,[A♯])=S♯ (claim 3 of the time-shift lemma),
(1e) Assembly. The map t↦∣yt∣2 is continuous on [0,T♯] (its components being differences of continuous maps, and the squared norm a continuous function of them, by continuity of compositions and continuity of sums and products), hence measurable. Squaring the bound of (1d) gives ∣yt∣2≤e2ΛbT∣x−St0∣2 for every t∈[0,T♯], using eΛbTeΛbT=e2ΛbT, the addition formula of the basic properties of the exponential. By monotonicity and claim 1 of the toolkit (λ[0,T♯]([0,T♯])=T♯),
Now J[(x♭),(A♯)]=∫[0,T♯]L(xt♭,At♯)dt+G(xT♯♭)=F[T♯](x,[A♯]): the first equality is the definition of the cost of an admissible pair in the expansion lemma, and the second holds because F[T♯](x,[A♯]) is, by the definition of the mean-field cost with the admissible representative A♯, the generalized mean-field cost of the pair (x♭,A♯), which is the same Lebesgue integral plus terminal term. Also JMF[(S♯),(A♯)]=∫[t0,T]L(St,At)dt+G(ST) by claim 3 of the time-shift lemma. Chaining with Jx∗[T♯]≤F[T♯](x,[A♯]) proves conclusion 1.
Step 2: proof of conclusion 2. Let x∈Δl with ∣x−St0∣≤εtg and let ξ∈UA[T♯] (t0 remaining the generic value fixed at the outset). Since Jx∗[T♯] is a lower bound of the value set Vx[T♯] and F[T♯](x,ξ) is a member of that set,