The signed-cylinder citation points to the wrong propositions
Where the issue occurs
Section 11.1, opening paragraph identifying the signed-cylinder inputs · p. 71
The finite inputs come from the signed cylinder representation [22, Section 2, Propositions 9.1–9.2 and Theorems 1.1–1.2].
Only the proposition locators are wrong here: the corresponding results in the cited paper are Propositions 10.1 and 10.7.
Issue & evidence
The signed-cylinder citation in the opening paragraph of Section 11.1 has incorrect proposition numbers. In the supplied cited PDF, the boundary-arch result is Proposition 10.1 (page 76), and the interior-visit comparison is Proposition 10.7 (statement on page 89, proof through page 90). These results support the corresponding inputs in Equation (66) and the following interior-visit comparison under matching conventions.
Proposed repair by OSVerify
In that citation, replace “Propositions 9.1–9.2” with “Propositions 10.1 and 10.7”. Retain Section 2 and Theorems 1.1–1.2 in that citation. This corrects the locators without changing the stated finite inputs or their downstream uses.
Related context
Downstream use Section 11.1, Equation (66) and the following interior-visit comparison
States the finite boundary and interior-visit inputs supported by the corrected citations. These statements are not identified as errors.