Section 92
An audit of the singular-fibre refinement
Lemma 92.1 (The actual fibre series). For integers , the fibre refinement of has, after removal of its fixed factor, the complete restriction of the positive part in Lemma 90.1. In particular, if is centred at a singular point of , then
Proof. For , the restriction sequence is surjective on sections because is nef and big, so Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing applies. For , the exact fixed component is , and the residual divisor is . Its restriction sequence is again surjective: is nef and big. Thus the fixed restriction is and the moving restriction is complete. The curve is contained in the smooth locus of ; this also follows from the local blow-up charts below. Its order at a valuation centred at a singular point of is zero. Taking the asymptotic order sums gives the formula, including its factor . ◻
Lemma 92.2 (The calculation). Suppose has one singularity and no other singularities. There is an exceptional curve on its minimal resolution with Consequently at that singular point.
Proof. The resolution is obtained by blowing up three distinct points of the conic, with two further successive blow-ups along the conic above the third point. Let be the line class and the total exceptional classes; their intersection matrix is . Put The curves are the two -curves over the point. The resolution is crepant, so . Moreover . For write The negative parts of are Their supports are negative definite: are disjoint and have squares . The proposed positive parts are orthogonal to their negative parts. To check nefness it suffices to test the negative curves For clarity, their intersections in the three chambers are as follows; the identical rows have been combined. All entries are nonnegative in the relevant chamber. Squaring the positive parts gives The endpoint positive part is , which has square zero. The nef conic-pencil class intersects in , proving the threshold , including when . Direct integration yields In particular, , and . Lemma 92.1 gives ◻
Remark 92.3 (The normalization correction). The volume polynomials above agree with [14, Appendix A.3]. However, its Corollary A.5 writes . The contribution from is , rather than ; the difference is . This accounts exactly for the correction from to . Either value obstructs a direct extension of that fibre-flag proof. This is a statement about the refined surface series, and does not prove K-instability of .