Proposition 2 uses the following reading of its Model B response rule:
Move every coordinate toward its ideal, up to its coordinatewise boundary.
For an L∞ neighborhood of radius r_t, every
non-tied coordinate therefore moves by exactly r_t toward
the corresponding coordinate of the sampled voter’s ideal. A tied
coordinate does not move. This is the coordinatewise rule used by the
paper’s proof of Proposition 2, which says to treat each dimension
separately and describes the coordinate as increasing or decreasing by
r_t according to the side of the voter’s ideal (Appendix
C.7).
Earlier in the paper, Model B is written as movement along the
utility-gradient ray, normalized by the neighborhood norm. For an
L∞ neighborhood, a literal reading gives coordinate
increment
r_t * (partial_m f_v(x) / ||partial f_v(x)||_infinity).
That expression reaches the boundary in the coordinate with largest derivative magnitude. It reaches every active coordinate boundary only when the normalized active-coordinate magnitudes agree. Proposition 2’s proof instead uses only the sign of each coordinate derivative and moves every active coordinate the full radius. The formalization makes that proof convention explicit rather than inferring it from the more general normalized-gradient-ray display.
The distinction is mathematically observable. For example, on
[-1,1]^2, let the ideal Y be uniform and
define the decomposable concave utility
f_y(x) = - a(y_1) |x_1-y_1| - 2 |x_2-y_2|,
a(y_1) = 1 if y_1 >= 0,
1/2 if y_1 < 0.
Under the literal normalized-gradient-ray rule, the first-coordinate
drift vanishes at x_1 = 1/4, not at the ordinary median
x_1 = 0. Thus that literal variant targets a weighted
median. Under the coordinatewise-boundary rule used in the Proposition 2
proof, the positive coordinate weights do not affect the step: each
coordinate moves by its sign, so the ordinary coordinatewise median is
the correct target.
On product domains, each coordinate can be varied independently and the limit is a coordinatewise median. On a general convex feasible set, those medians may be infeasible. The checked constrained conclusion instead minimizes expected coordinatewise absolute distance over the feasible set. The constrained-domain explanation gives the geometry and an example.
The normalized-gradient-ray rule is a distinct model whose coordinate weights can change the limit, as the example above shows. Proposition 2’s formalization uses the coordinatewise rule described by the source proof.