@FKranhold You mean I got it right? You had me fooled. I should apologize for leaving that detail to the reader, but let me give two excuses. First, one does not actually need that detail to prove Lemma 1.1(iv). It just answers an obvious question the reader might have about the proof. Second, that paper was from the good old days when things went fast. The conference was March 30 to April 4, 1970, for Steenrod's 60th birthday, and the Proceedings were submitted June 15, 1970. No time to polish the writing. I remember Steenrod telling me that mine was the only paper in the Proceedings that he understood. He died the next year.

@FKranhold You mean I got it right? You had me fooled. I should apologize for leaving that detail to the reader, but let me give two excuses. First, one does not actually need that detail to prove Lemma 1.1(iv). It just answers an obvious question the reader might have about the proof. Second, that paper was from the good old days when things went fast. There was a conference, March 30 to April 4, 1970, for Steenrod's 60th birthday. Its Proceedings were submitted June 15, 1970. No time to polish the writing. I remember Steenrod telling me that mine was the only paper in the Proceedings that he understood. He died the next year.