We denote the support of random variables (V_1,\dots,V_k) and their conditional versions V_1|(V_2=v_2,\dots,V_k=v_k), for k\ge2, as \text{supp}(V_1,\dots,V_k) and \text{supp}(V_1|V_2=v_2,\dots,V_k=v_k).
Observe that q, defined in Example 2, is strictly monotone and differentiable a.e. with respect to P_{0,A}, and admits an inverse that is differentiable a.e. with positive derivative.
Suppose that \tilde\rho_{P_0}(a,l,w) = I_0(a,l)\cdot\frac{dq^{-1}(a)}{da}\cdot\frac{p_{0,A|L,W}\{q^{-1}(a)\mid l,w\}}{p_{0,A|L,W}(a|l,w)}, where I_0(a,l):=I\{a\in[c+\delta,d]\}, is bounded by some B_0>0. Then, for any h\in\mathcal{L}^2(A,L,W),
\begin{aligned}
\Vert\widetilde{m}(O;h)\Vert_2^2&=\iint \left[\int h\{q(a),l,w\}^2p_{0,A|L,W}(a|l,w)da\right]dP_0(l,w)\\
&\stackrel{(i)}{=}\iiint h(\tilde a,l,w)^2\cdot I\{\tilde a\in[c+\delta,d]\}\cdot \frac{dq^{-1}(\tilde a)}{d\tilde a}p_{0,A|L,W}(q^{-1}(\tilde a)|l,w)\:d\tilde a\cdot dP_{0}(l,w)\\
&\stackrel{(ii)}{=}\iiint h(\tilde a,l,w)^2\cdot I_0(\tilde a,l)\cdot\tilde \rho_{P_0}(\tilde a,l,w)p_{0,A|L,W}(\tilde a|l,w)\:d\tilde a\cdot dP_{0}(l,w)\\
&\stackrel{(iii)}{\le} B_0\iiint I_0(\tilde a,l)\cdot h(\tilde a,l,w)^2p_{0,A|L,W}(\tilde a|l,w)\:d\tilde a\cdot dP_0(l,w)=B_0\cdot \Vert I_0h\Vert_2^2,
\end{aligned}
where the equality in (i) follows from the change of variable \tilde a = q(a), which is valid since q has an a.e. differentiable inverse with strictly positive derivative and maps [c,d] onto [c+\delta,d]. Equality (ii) follows directly from the definition of \tilde\rho_{P_0}, and the inequality (iii) uses the assumption that |\tilde\rho_{P_0}(a,l,w)|\le B_0 for all (a,l,w)\in\text{supp}(A,L,W). This proves the first inequality in part 1 of Assumption ? with constant B_2=\sqrt{B_0}.
To verify part 2 of Assumption ?, we impose the following common support assumption: \text{supp}(A|L=l,U=u)=\text{supp}(A|L=l) for all (l,u)\in\text{supp}(L,U), which is standard in proximal inference (see [olivas2025chap3]). This assumption, together with the fact that W is a negative control outcome– i.e., (A,Z)\perp W|L,U – imply that \text{supp}(A|L=l,W=w)=\text{supp}(A|L=l) for all (l,w)\in\text{supp}(L,W). Moreover, \text{supp}(A,L,W)=[c,d]\times\text{supp}(L,W) given that \text{supp}(A|L=l)=[c,d] for all l\in\mathcal{L}.
Next, we define an equivalence relation on \mathcal{H} as follows: h\leftrightarrow h' if and only if h(a,l,w)=h'(a,l,w) for all (a,l,w)\in[c+\delta, d]\times\text{supp}(L,W). Let \widetilde{\mathcal{H}}:=\{[h]:h\in\mathcal{H}\} denote the set of equivalences classes in \mathcal{H} under this relation. Note that h\leftrightarrow h' iff h-h'\in[0]:=\{h\in\mathcal{H}:h(a,l,w)=0\:\forall (a,l,w)\in[c+\delta,d]\times\text{supp}(L,W)\}. In the special case of a Gaussian RKHS, the zero function is the only function that vanishes on a non-empty open subset (see Corollary 4.44 of [steinwart2008support]); hence each equivalence class contains a single function, and \widetilde{\mathcal{H}} coincides with \mathcal{H}. Define the map \tilde d:\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}\times\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}\mapsto\mathbb{R} by
\tilde d([h_1],[h_2]):=\inf\{\Vert h_1-h_2+v\Vert_\mathcal{H}\mid v\in[0]\}.
Note that \tilde d is well-defined because the set in the right hand side is invariant to the choice of representer h_1\in[h_1] and h_2\in[h_2]. We now verify that \tilde d is a metric on \widetilde{\mathcal{H}}. By construction, \tilde d is symmetric. To see that the triangle inequality holds, given \epsilon >0 and [h_1],[h_2],[h_3]\in\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}, pick v,v'\in[0] such that \Vert h_1-h_2+v\Vert_\mathcal{H} < \tilde d([h_1],[h_2]) + \epsilon and \Vert h_2-h_3+v'\Vert_\mathcal{H} < \tilde d([h_2],[h_3]) + \epsilon. Then, \Vert h_1-h_3+v+v'\Vert_\mathcal{H} \le \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])+d([h_2],[h_3])+ 2 \epsilon. Because v+v'\in[0], it follows that \tilde d([h_1],[h_3]) \le \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])+\tilde d([h_2],[h_3]) + 2 \epsilon. Since this holds for all \epsilon >0, the triangular inequality follows.
Finally, we show that \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])=0 if and only if [h_1]=[h_2]. The if direction is trivial since \tilde d([h],[h])=\inf\{\Vert v\Vert\mid v\in[0]\}=0 for all [h]\in\widetilde{\mathcal{H}}. To show the only if direction suppose that \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])=0 but [h_1]\neq[h_2]. Then there exist representatives h_1\in[h_1], h_2\in[h_2], and a point (a_0,l_0,w_0)\in[c+\delta,d]\times\text{supp}(L,W) such that h_1(a_0,l_0,w_0)\neq h_2(a_0,l_0,w_0). Let \epsilon:=|h_1(a_0,l_0,w_0)- h_2(a_0,l_0,w_0)|>0, and k:=[\sup_{(a,l,w)\in\text{supp}(A,L,W)}K_{\mathcal{H}}\{(a,l,w),(a,l,w)\}]^{1/2}<\infty. By the definition of \tilde d and the fact that \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])=0, there exists v'\in[0] such that \Vert h_1-h_2+v'\Vert_\mathcal{H}<\epsilon/k. Let h_1':=h_1+v'. Then we arrive at the following contradiction:
\begin{aligned}
k\Vert h_1'-h_2\Vert_\mathcal{H}<|h_1(a_0,l_0,w_0)-h_2(a_0,l_0,w_0)|=|h'_1(a_0,l_0,w_0)-h_2(a_0,l_0,w_0)|\le k\Vert h_1'-h_2\Vert_\mathcal{H},
\end{aligned}
where the equality holds because h_1\leftrightarrow h'_1 and the final inequality because for any h\in\mathcal{H}, \Vert h\Vert_\infty\le k\:\Vert h\Vert_\mathcal{H}. Hence, \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])=0 implies [h_1]=[h_2].
We now show that (\widetilde{\mathcal{H}},d) is separable. Since K_\mathcal{H} is continuous and \text{supp}(A,L,W) is compact, \mathcal{H} is separable under the metric induced by its norm (see Proposition 11.7 of [paulsen2016introduction]). Let \{h_n\}\subset\mathcal{H} be a countable dense subset, and consider the set of equivalence classes \{[h_n]\}. We claim this set is dense in \widetilde{\mathcal{H}}. Indeed, for any [h]\in\widetilde{\mathcal{H}} and \epsilon>0, there exists a representative h'\in[h] and some h_n\in\mathcal{H} such that \Vert h'-h_n\Vert_\mathcal{H}<\epsilon. Then d([h],[h_n])\le\Vert h-h_n\Vert_\mathcal{H}<\epsilon, so \{[h_n]\} is dense in \widetilde{\mathcal{H}}, and thus \widetilde{\mathcal{H}} is separable.
Next, consider the class \widetilde{m}\circ \mathcal{H}:=\{o\mapsto h(q(a),l,w)\}, which is in a one-to-one correspondence with \widetilde{\mathcal{H}}. More precisely, the map h\mapsto \widetilde{m}(\cdot,h) is well-defined on equivalence classes, since \widetilde{m}(o;h_1)=\widetilde{m}(o;h_2) for all o\in\mathcal{O} iff h_1(q(a),l,w)=h_1(q(a),l,w) for all (a,l,w)\in[c,d]\times\text{supp}(L,W), h_1(a,l,w)=h_2(a,l,w) for all (a,l,w)\in[c+\delta,d]\times\text{supp}(L,W) (since q
\left([c,d]\right)=[c+\delta,d]) iff h_1\leftrightarrow h_2. Thus, we can equip \widetilde{m}\circ\mathcal{G} with the metric d defined as:
d(f_1,f_2):=\tilde d([h_{f_1}],[h_{f_2}])\quad \text{ for any }f_1,f_2\in\widetilde{\mathcal{H}},
where [h_{f_1}] and [h_{f_2}] are their corresponding equivalence classes in \widetilde{\mathcal{H}}. This yields (\widetilde{m}\circ\mathcal{H},d) a separable metric space. By construction, the metric d is controlled by the RKHS norm.
Finally, we show that the metric d dominates the sup-norm on \widetilde{m}\circ\mathcal{H}. For any f_1,f_2\in \widetilde{m}\circ\mathcal{H}, let [h_{f_1}] and [h_{f_2}] be their corresponding equivalence classes, and take any representatives h_{f_1}\in [h_{f_1}] and h_{f_2}\in [h_{f_2}]. Then, for any o\in\mathcal{O}, we have
\begin{aligned}
|f_1(o)-f_2(o)|:=|\widetilde{m}(o;h_{f_1})-\widetilde{m}(o;h_{f_2})|&=|h_{f_1}(q(a),l,w)-h_{f_2}(a,l,w)|\le k\Vert h_{f_1}-h_{f_2}\Vert_\mathcal{H}.
\end{aligned}
Since the representatives were arbitrary, we conclude that \sup_{o\in\mathcal{O}} |f_1(o)-f_2(o)|\le k\cdot \tilde d([h_1],[h_2])=k\cdot d(f_1,f_2), implying that d dominates the metric induced by the sup-norm with constant B_3=k. This completes the verification of part 2 of Assumption ?.