First, by the assumptions above, we know that for each data set \mathcal{D}_{\operatorname{s}} in lines 5-7 of Algorithm ?, we have taken one sample \operatorname{\delta}_j of \operatorname{N_{RV}} (potentially) different random variables S_{\hat{x}_j}. By Proposition 1, we know that with minimum probability 1-(1-\epsilon)^{\operatorname{N_{RV}}}, the maximum sample \operatorname{\delta}^*_j \triangleq \max\{\operatorname{\delta}_{\ell} \in \mathcal{D}\} is greater than the Value-at-Risk of its corresponding random variable \operatorname{VaR}_{\epsilon}(S_{\hat{x}^*_j}) (\operatorname{VaR} is defined in Definition 2). Since we assume Assumption 1 holds for each such set of random variables, then we know that with minimum probability 1-(1-\epsilon)^{\operatorname{N_{RV}}}, the sum \operatorname{\delta}^*_j + \beta is greater than the value-at-risk level \epsilon of any sampled random variable, i.e. the sum \operatorname{\delta}^*_j + \beta is a non-noisy estimate of \operatorname{\mathbb{SR}}_{\epsilon}(S,\hat{x}),~\forall~\hat{x} \in \mathcal{D}_{\operatorname{s}}. Hence, repeating this same argument for each data point in \operatorname{\mathbb{X}},\operatorname{\mathbb{Y}} and setting R=0, as each sampled point is a non-noisy sample of our upper-bounding surface, we recover the results of Theorem 1 with minimum probability (1-(1-\epsilon)^{\operatorname{N_{RV}}})^{\operatorname{s}}:
|\mu_{\operatorname{s}}(\hat{x}) - \operatorname{\mathbb{SR}}_{\epsilon}(S,\hat{x})| \leq B \sigma_{\operatorname{s}}(\hat{x}),~\forall~\hat{x} \in \hat{\mathcal{X}}.
Our final result holds by unraveling the absolute-value inequality in (Proof), as \operatorname{\mathbb{SR}}_{\epsilon}(S) is an upper-bounding surface for \operatorname{SaR}_{\epsilon}(S).