In this proof, by \rho_i(x) for x \in \mathfrak g we will mean (\rho_i \circ \iota_{i,0})(x). By (i), this means that \rho_i(x)=\rho_j(x).
We now prove the statement of the proposition by induction on m. The statement is vacuously true if m=1. For the inductive step, we proceeds as follows.
For all x\in \mathfrak g choose a decomposition x = \sum_{j} [x_{j}', x_{j}''] (a finite sum). We define inductively:
\rho(x \otimes t_1^{p_1}t_2^{p_2} \cdots t_m^{p_m})=\sum_{j} [\rho(x_{j}' \otimes t_1^{p_1} \cdots t_{m-1}^{p_{m-1}}), \rho_m(x_{j}'' \otimes t_m^{p_m})], \hspace{3mm} m>1.
We need to show two facts: (1) \rho is well-defined, i.e. it doesn’t depend on the choice of decomposition, (2) \rho does indeed define a Lie algebra homomorphism. The main step of this argument is to show that \rho, assumed well-defined for m-1, can be expressed in the form:
\rho(x\otimes t^{\mathbf p} )=\sum_{x_{1}',\dots, x_{m}' \in \mathfrak g}[\rho_{m}(x_{m}'\otimes t_{m}^{p_{m}}), [\rho_{m-1}(x_{m-1}'\otimes t_{{m-1}}^{p_{m-1}}), \cdots[\rho_{2}(x_{2}'\otimes t_{2}^{p_{2}}),\rho_1(x_{1}' \otimes t_{1}^{p_{1}})]\cdots ]]
where
x=\sum_{x_{1}',\dots, x_{m}' \in \mathfrak g}[x_{m}', [x_{m-1}', \cdots[x_{2}',x_{1}' ]\cdots ]].
This is clear when m=0,1 so assume that (Proof) holds for m-1, and compute:
\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j} [\rho(x_{j}' \otimes t_{1}^{p_1} \cdots t_{{m-1}}^{p_{m-1}}), \rho_m(x_{j}'' \otimes t_m^{p_m})]=\sum_{j} [ \rho_m(-x_{j}'' \otimes t_m^{p_m}),[\rho(x_{j}' \otimes t_{1}^{p_1} \cdots t_{{m-1}}^{p_{m-1}})]]\\
&=\sum_j\sum_{x_{1,j}',\dots, x_{m-1,j}' \in \mathfrak g} [\rho_m(-x_{j}''\otimes t_m^{p_m}),[\rho_{m-1}(x_{m-1,j}'\otimes t_{m-1}^{p_{m-1}}), [ \cdots[\rho_{2}(x_{2,j}'\otimes t_{2}^{p_{2}}),\rho_1(x_{1,j}' \otimes t_{1}^{p_{1}})]\cdots ]]]
\end{aligned}
where
\begin{aligned}
\sum_j\sum_{x_{1,j}',\dots, x_{m-1,j}' \in \mathfrak g} [-x_{j}'',[x_{m-1,j}', [ \cdots[x_{2,j}',x_{1,j}' ]\cdots ]]]=\sum_j[-x_j'',x_j']=x
\end{aligned}
as desired.
Now, we use (Proof) to prove that \rho is well-defined on L^m(\mathfrak g). In particular, it is independent of the chosen decomposition. Let x=\sum_i [x_{i,1}',x_{i,1}'']=\sum_i[x_{i,2}',x_{i,2}''] be two distinct decompositions and use (Proof) to write
\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{j=1}^2(-1)^j\sum_i [\rho(x_{i,j}'\otimes t_1^{p_1}t_2^{p_2}\cdots t_{m-1}^{p_{m-1}}),\rho_m(x_{i,j}''\otimes t_m^{p_m})]\\
&=\sum_{j=1}^2(-1)^j\sum_i\sum_{x_{i,j,1}',\dots, x_{i,j,m-1}' \in \mathfrak g}[-\rho_m(x_{i,j}''\otimes t_m^{p_m}),[\rho_{m-1}(x_{i,j,m-1}'\otimes t_{m-1}^{p_{m-1}}), [\cdots[\rho_{2}(x_{i,j,2}'\otimes t_{2}^{p_{2}}),\rho_1(x_{i,j,1}' \otimes t_{1}^{p_{1}})]\cdots ]]].
\end{aligned}
Now, observe that, by our choices
\sum_{j=1}^2(-1)^j\sum_i\sum_{x_{i,j,1}',\dots, x_{i,1,m-1}' \in \mathfrak g}[-x_{i,j}'',[x_{i,j,m-1}', [\cdots [x_{i,j,2}',x_{i,j,1}']\cdots ]]]=\sum_{j=1}^2(-1)^j\sum_i[x_{i,j}',x_{i,j}'']=x-x=0.
Therefore condition (ii) applies to show:
\sum_i [\rho(x_{i,1}'\otimes t_1^{p_1}t_2^{p_2}\cdots t_{m-1}^{p_{m-1}}),\rho_m(x_{i,1}''\otimes t_m^{p_m})]=\sum_i [\rho(x_{i,2}'\otimes t_1^{p_1}t_2^{p_2}\cdots t_{m-1}^{p_{m-1}}),\rho_m(x_{i,2}''\otimes t_m^{p_m})].
Hence, the decomposition of x does not affect the definition of \rho.
Now we show that \rho is a homomorphism of Lie algebras.
We want to show that
[\rho(x\otimes t^\mathbf s),\rho(y\otimes t^\mathbf r)]=\rho([x,y]\otimes t^{\mathbf s + \mathbf r}),\ \ x,y\in\mathfrak g, \ \mathbf r, \mathbf s\in\mathbb Z^m.
Write \mathbf r = (r_1, \ldots , r_m), \mathbf s = (s_1, \ldots , s_m). We first check the equality in the case when s_j=0 for all j. Here the result holds by definition. Then we assume that this has been proved for s_j=0 for j>p and prove it for s_j=0 with j>p+1.
By (Proof) we write:
\rho(y\otimes t^{\mathbf r} )=\sum_{y_{1}',\dots, y_{m}' \in \mathfrak g}[\rho_m(y_m'\otimes t_m^{r_m}), [\rho_{m-1}(y_{m-1}'\otimes t_{{m-1}}^{r_{m-1}}), \cdots[\rho_2(y_2'\otimes t_2^{r_2}),\rho_1(y_1' \otimes t_1^{r_1})]\cdots ]].
Then:
\begin{aligned}
&\sum_{y_{1}',\dots, y_{m}' \in \mathfrak g}[\rho_1(x\otimes t_1^{s_1}),[\rho_m(y_m'\otimes t_m^{r_m}), [\rho_{m-1}(y_{m-1}'\otimes t_{m-1}^{r_{m-1}}), \cdots[\rho_2(y_2'\otimes t_2^{r_2}),\rho_1(y_1' \otimes t_1^{r_1})]\cdots ]]]\\
&=\sum_{y_1',\dots, y_m' \in \mathfrak g}[\rho_m(x\otimes t_m^{r_m}),[\rho_{m-1}(y_{m}'\otimes t_{m-1}^{r_{m-1}}), [ \cdots[\rho_{1}(y_2'\otimes t_1^{r_1}),\rho_1(y_1' \otimes t_1^{s_1})]\cdots ]]]\\
&=\sum_{y_1',\dots, y_m' \in \mathfrak g}[\rho_m(x\otimes t_m^{r_m}),[\rho_{m-1}(y_m'\otimes t_{m-1}^{r_{m-1}}), [ \cdots[\rho_2(y_3'\otimes t_2^{r_2}),\rho_{1}([y_2',y_1']\otimes t_1^{r_1+s_1})]\cdots ]]]\\
&=\rho([x,y]\otimes t^{\mathbf r}t_1^{s_1})
\end{aligned}
using (iii) in the second line to permute the \rho_{i} and powers of t_i.
Now, assume \rho is a homomorphism for 1\le p < m. The definition of \rho gives:
\rho(x\otimes t_1^{s_1}\cdots t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}})=\sum_j [\rho(x_j'\otimes t_1^{s_1}\cdots t_{p}^{s_{p}}),\rho_u(x_j''\otimes t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}})].
An argument similar to the one given above shows that, for all z \in \mathfrak g
[\rho_{p+1}(z\otimes t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}}), \rho(y\otimes t^{\mathbf r})]=\rho([z,y]\otimes t^{\mathbf r}t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}}).
Finally, we use the Jacobi Identity and induction to write:
\begin{aligned}
&\left [\sum_j [\rho(x_j'\otimes t_1^{s_1}\cdots t_{p}^{s_{p}}),\rho_{p+1}(x_j''\otimes t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}})], \rho(y\otimes t^{\mathbf r})\right ]\\
&=\sum_j([\rho(x_j'\otimes t_1^{s_1}\cdots t_p^{s_p}),[\rho_{p+1}(x_j''\otimes t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}}), \rho(y\otimes t^{\mathbf r})]]-[\rho_{p+1}(x_j''\otimes t_{p+1}^{s_{p+1}}), [\rho(x_j'\otimes t_1^{s_1}\cdots t_p^{s_p}),\rho(y\otimes t^{\mathbf r})]])\\
&=\rho\left(\sum_j([x_j',[x_j'',y]]-[x_j'', [x_j',y]])\otimes t^{\mathbf s + \mathbf r}\right )\\
&=\rho([x,y]\otimes t^{\mathbf r + \mathbf s}).
\end{aligned}
Hence the proposition is proved. The maps and algebras involved are collected in the following commutative diagram.
The paper has a picture here, which this page does not show.