Erratum to XV-D's coefficient proposition

XV-D, Section 6, Proposition prop:reduction, item (iii), states under hypothesis (H1) ($v_{\alpha }\in C^{\infty }(S_0)$) that if XV-C's estimate fails for ${b^{\circ }}_{D,\gamma }=v_{\gamma }{c}_{D,0}$, $|\gamma |=3$, then (a) $c_{D,0}$ has no extension to ${\mathcal{D}}^{\prime }(S_0)$, and (b) “the failure sequence of XV-C for ${b^{\circ }}_{D,\gamma }$ is then a failure witness for the trace $c_{D,0}$ itself.” Clause (a) is correct under (H1). Clause (b) overstates: the normalized form of XV-C's witness is not preserved under multiplication by $v_{\gamma }$. The proposed XV-E plan suggested instead that (a) requires an invertibility hypothesis; that suggestion conflates (a) with its converse. The following proposition settles all directions.