1: \begin{proof}[Proof of (ii) of Theorem \ref{quasitrichotomy}.]

2: Once the box system is constructed properly, the verification of the boundary compatibility condition (BCC) is rather straightforward with the interval arithmetic. The difficulty lies in the construction of the projective box system.

3: 

4: For example, to verify BCC for the transition $(0, 2) \in \mathfrak{T}^{+}$, the absolute values of $\verb|delta_Px[0]|$ and $\verb|delta_Qx[0]|$ should be large enough so that the image of $\pi_u \circ f(\partial^v \mathcal{B}^{+}_0)$ does not intersect with $D_{u, 2}$. However, if these values are too large, then it is likely that the (BCC) for the transition $(1, 0)$ fails, in turn. Therefore, we must choose adequate values of $\verb|delta_Px[i]|$ and $\verb|delta_Qx[i]|$ carefully so that (BCC) holds for all the possible transitions.

5: 

6: Another issue that we need to pay attention is the precision of the coordinate change. While the H\'enon map itself is defined in the Euclidean coordinate, the (BCC) is described in the projective coordinate. Therefore, the verification of the (BBC) involves the rigorous interval arithmetic for the coordinate change between them. This becomes problematic when the focus $u$ (or $v$; see Figure~\ref{FIG:projective_coordinates}) is too close to the projective box, because then a small divisor appears in the coordinate change form Euclidean one to projective one, resulting loss of precision in the interval arithmetic. Therefore, again we must carefully adjust the values of $\verb|tx[i]|$ and $\verb|ty[i]|$ so that the foci are far enough from the boxes. 

7: \end{proof}

8: