To show (3.8), we first establish the positive lower bound of the principal curvatures. Define
\begin{aligned}
\Phi\coloneqq \Delta h+nh=\sum_{i=1}^n \frac{1}{\kappa_i},
\end{aligned}
which is the harmonic curvature of \Sigma_t.
First of all, we claim that if \theta\in (0,\pi/2), there holds
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu \Phi \leq 0 \quad \text{ on } \partial \mathcal{C}_\theta.
\end{aligned}
In fact, along \partial{\mathcal C}_\theta, we choose an orthonormal frame \{e_i\}_{i=1}^n such that e_n=\mu. Since \nabla_\mu h=\cot\theta h on \partial \mathcal{C}_\theta, then for all 1\leq \beta\leq n-1,
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\beta (h_n)=\cot\theta \nabla_\beta h,
\end{aligned}
together with the Gauss-Weingarten equation of \partial \mathcal{C}_\theta \subset \mathcal{C}_\theta, we have
\begin{aligned}
h_{\beta n}= \nabla^2h(e_\beta ,e_n)=\nabla_{e_\beta}(\nabla h(e_n))-\nabla h(\nabla_{e_\beta}e_n) =0.
\end{aligned}
Applying the Gauss-Weingarten equation of \partial \mathcal{C}_\theta \subset \mathcal{C}_\theta again and combining with (?), we have
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{\beta\beta n}h&=(\nabla^3 h)(e_\beta,e_\beta,e_n) =(\nabla_{e_\beta }(\nabla^2 h))(e_\beta ,e_n)\\&= \nabla_{e_\beta}(\nabla^2 h(e_\beta,e_n))-\nabla^2 h(\nabla_{e_\beta }e_\beta,e_n)-\nabla^2 h(e_\beta,\nabla_{e_\beta}e_n)
\\&=\cot\theta h_{nn}-\cot\theta h_{\beta \beta}.
\end{aligned}
The commutator formula on \mathcal{C}_{\theta} implies
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{n\beta\beta } h=\nabla_{\beta\beta n}h-h_n=\cot\theta ( h_{nn}- h_{\beta\beta }- h),
\end{aligned}
then it follows
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{n} a_{\beta\beta} =\nabla_{n}h_{\beta\beta} + h_{n}= \cot\theta (a_{nn}-a_{\beta\beta}).
\end{aligned}
From (3.5), we have
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\beta=1}^{n-1} a^{\beta\beta}\nabla_{n}a_{\beta\beta}+a^{nn}\nabla_{n}a_{nn}=0,
\end{aligned}
that is,
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{n} a_{nn}=- \sum_{\beta=1}^{n-1}
\frac{a^{\beta\beta }}{a^{nn}}\nabla_{n}a_{\beta\beta},
\end{aligned}
which, together with (?), implies
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_\mu \Phi&= \sum_{\beta=1}^{n-1}\nabla_\mu a_{\beta\beta}+\nabla_\mu a_{nn}
\\&= \cot\theta \sum_{\beta=1}^{n-1} \left( 1-\frac{ a^{\beta\beta}}{a^{nn}}\right) (a_{nn}-a_{\beta\beta}) \leq 0,
\end{aligned}
where the last inequality follows from the positive definiteness of (a_{ij}) and \theta \in(0,\pi/2). Hence, we prove the assertion (Proof).
Next, we compute the evolution equation of \Phi, bear in mind that
\Delta \ell+n\ell =n.
From Eq. (3.2), we derive
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \Phi &=\Delta (\partial_t h)+n\partial_t h
\\&= -\ell \Delta K-2\nabla \ell \cdot \nabla K-K\Delta \ell -n\ell K
\\&=- \ell K \Delta K-2\nabla \ell\cdot \nabla K-nK,
\end{aligned}
and
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_i K=-Ka^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl},
\end{aligned}
By the covariant derivative commutator formula on \mathcal{C}_\theta, we have
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{j}\nabla_{i}h_{pq}=\nabla_{q}\nabla_{p}h_{ij}+2(h_{pq}\delta_{ij}-h_{ij}\delta_{pq})+h_{iq}\delta_{pj}-h_{jp}\delta_{iq},
\end{aligned}
which implies
\begin{aligned} \nabla_{j}\nabla_{i}a_{pq}&=\nabla_{j}\nabla_{i}h_{pq}+h_{ij}\delta_{pq}
\\&=\nabla_{q}\nabla_{p}a_{ij} +a_{pq}\delta_{ij}-a_{ij}\delta_{pq}+a_{iq}\delta_{pj}-a_{jp}\delta_{iq}.
\end{aligned}
Then
\begin{aligned}
\nabla_{ij} K&= -\nabla_j K a^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}-Ka^{kl}\nabla_{j}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}-K\nabla_{j}a^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}
\\&= -Ka^{kl} (\nabla_{l}\nabla_{k}a_{ij}+a_{kl}\delta_{ij}-a_{ij}\delta_{kl}+a_{il}\delta_{kj}-a_{jk}\delta_{il})
\\&& +Ka^{kp} \nabla_{j}a_{pq} a^{ql}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}+ Ka^{pq}\nabla_{j}a_{pq}a^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}
\end{aligned}
and
\begin{aligned}
\Delta K&= Ka^{kp} \nabla_{i}a_{pq} a^{ql}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}+ Ka^{pq}\nabla_{i}a_{pq}a^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}
\\&& -Ka^{kl}\nabla_{l}\nabla_{k}\Phi-n^2 K+\Phi H K.
\end{aligned}
Altogether yields
\begin{aligned}
\partial_t\Phi &= \ell Ka^{kl}\nabla_{l}\nabla_{k}\Phi+ n^2 \ell -\ell K \Phi H -n K
-2 \nabla \ell\cdot \nabla K \\&& -\ell K a^{kp} \nabla_{i}a_{pq} a^{ql}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}- \ell K a^{pq}\nabla_{i}a_{pq}a^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl}.
\end{aligned}
From (Proof), we have that \Phi attains its maximum value at some interior point, say \xi_0 \in \mathcal{C}_{\theta} \setminus \partial \mathcal{C}_{\theta}. Assume that a_{ij} is diagonal at this point, which in turn implies that a^{ij} is also diagonal at \xi_0. Then at \xi_0, we find
\begin{aligned}
0 &\leq &\mathcal{L} \Phi=\partial_t\Phi- \ell Ka^{kl}\nabla_{k}\nabla_{l}\Phi
\\&= (n\ell-1) nK - \ell K \Phi H
\\&& - \ell K a^{kp} \nabla_{i}a_{pq} a^{ql}\nabla_{i}a_{kl} - \ell K a^{pq}\nabla_{i}a_{pq}a^{kl}\nabla_{i}a_{kl} -2 \nabla\ell \cdot \nabla K.
\end{aligned}
From (?) we have
\begin{aligned}
-2 \nabla \ell\cdot \nabla K=2\cos\theta \<e_i,e\> K a^{kk}\nabla_{i}a_{kk}.
\end{aligned}
By using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the convexity of \Sigma_t, we obtain
\begin{aligned}
-\ell \sum_{k,l,i} a^{kk}a^{ll}(\nabla_{i}a_{kl})^2- \ell \sum_i (\sum_k a^{kk}\nabla_{i}a_{kk} )^2-2\cos\theta \<e_i,e\> a^{kk} \nabla_{i}a_{kk} \leq C ,~~~~~~
\end{aligned}
where the constant C only depends on n. Inserting (?) into (?), and using the fact that H\geq nK^{1/n} , we derive that
\begin{aligned}
\ell K^{\frac{1}{n}} \Phi\leq \frac{1}{n} \ell H\Phi \le ( n \ell -1)+C,
\end{aligned}
which, together with Proposition 3.6, gives
\begin{aligned}
\Phi \leq C_{0},
\end{aligned}
for some positive constant C_{0} depending on n and \Sigma_{0}. It implies
\begin{aligned}
\kappa_i\geq C^{-1}_{0}.
\end{aligned}
The upper bound of \kappa_i follows directly from (?) and Proposition 3.7, since
\begin{aligned}
\kappa_i = K \prod_{j\neq i} \kappa_j^{-1} \leq C C_0^{-(n-1)} \coloneqq C_1.
\end{aligned}
This completes the proof.