The previous statement "Heawood is constant on K through merged" was
strictly stronger than what the proof actually established without
Conjecture 5.3. Restate the lemma in the contrapositive direction:
If h_phi is constant on V(K), then no edge e in E(K) admits a face
F of G'^hat and edges e_1, e_2 on dF realising the clause-(3) arc
of Conjecture 5.1 at the endpoints of e.
Proof structure is mostly preserved (same F_R/F_L geometry, same case
split on phi(e) in {a, b}, same reading-off of cyclic colour orders).
The hypothesis "h_phi(v_0) != h_phi(v_1)" becomes "h_phi(v_0) =
h_phi(v_1)", which flips the conclusion: the same-coloured non-e
edges at v_0, v_1 land on opposite faces of e instead of the same
face. No dependency on Conjecture 5.3 or Theorem 4.X.
Redraw the figure to match the new lemma: both vertices labelled
h_phi = +1, both showing CW order (a, b, c), and the same-colour pair
(b-edges in Case A, a-edges in Case B) drawn on opposite sides of e.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <noreply@anthropic.com>
didericis
037d987c7d