It is posited that initiating the construction at $\gamma_1 \cup \zeta_1$ instead of including $\gamma_0 + \zeta_0$ could simplify the process by leveraging the logic already in place. This approach assumes the first point as the origin, hence bypassing the need to consider the average feerate for the entire setup from the beginning.

Further examination leads to an understanding that discussing the feerate of the entire set rather than individual sections amounts to an alternative expression of the fee diagram's characteristics—namely, its elevation. The suggested method of reasoning entails visualizing horizontal line segments whose optimal solution correlates with a decrease in value.

When revisiting the proof comparison between translating $N$ and $L$, the focus shifts to comparing the feerate at a given $\gamma_i$ with the feerate after adding $\zeta_i$. Since $\zeta_i$ is greater than or equal to a fixed fee $f$ and the size of the resulting set is larger, it follows logically that the feerate increases. An optimally chunked solution would extend this higher feerate leftwards across previous chunks. Consequently, one can conclude that the $N$ methodology chunks more effectively up to any given point $i$, without the complexity of dealing with intersecting lines. This simplification streamlines the argument and potentially strengthens the proof by avoiding unnecessary complications.