[step:Check the renormalised coordinates define a morphism on a neighbourhood of $p$]
Set $\widetilde G_i := t^{-m} G_i \in \mathcal{O}_C(\eta)$ for $i = 0, \ldots, n$. We verify two properties.
**Every $\widetilde G_i$ lies in $\mathcal{O}_{C,p}$.** For each $i$, either $G_i = 0$ (so $\widetilde G_i = 0 \in \mathcal{O}_{C,p}$ immediately), or $G_i \neq 0$, in which case
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{ord}_p(\widetilde G_i) = \operatorname{ord}_p(t^{-m}) + \operatorname{ord}_p(G_i) = -m + \operatorname{ord}_p(G_i) \geq -m + m = 0,
\end{align*}
using that $\operatorname{ord}_p : \mathcal{O}_C(\eta)^\times \to \mathbb{Z}$ is a group homomorphism (Theorem 2170, Step 4) and the definition of $m$. By the [order homomorphism](/theorems/2170) characterisation, $\operatorname{ord}_p(\widetilde G_i) \geq 0$ implies $\widetilde G_i \in \mathcal{O}_{C,p}$.
**At least one $\widetilde G_i$ does not vanish at $p$.** Pick $j$ with $\operatorname{ord}_p(G_j) = m$ (such $j$ exists by definition of the minimum). Then
\begin{align*}
\operatorname{ord}_p(\widetilde G_j) = -m + m = 0.
\end{align*}
Again by the [order homomorphism](/theorems/2170) characterisation, $\operatorname{ord}_p(\widetilde G_j) = 0$ means $\widetilde G_j \in \mathcal{O}_{C,p} \setminus \mathfrak{m}_p = \mathcal{O}_{C,p}^\times$, and in particular the residue of $\widetilde G_j$ in $k = \mathcal{O}_{C,p}/\mathfrak{m}_p$ is nonzero — that is, $\widetilde G_j(p) \neq 0$.
**Spread to a neighbourhood.** Since $\widetilde G_0, \ldots, \widetilde G_n \in \mathcal{O}_{C,p}$, each is regular on some Zariski-open neighbourhood of $p$ in $C$. The intersection $V_p$ of these $n+1$ neighbourhoods, intersected further with the locus $\{\widetilde G_j \neq 0\}$ (which is Zariski-open since $\widetilde G_j$ is regular at $p$ and nonvanishing there), is a Zariski-open neighbourhood of $p$ on which all $\widetilde G_i$ are regular and $\widetilde G_j$ is nonvanishing. On $V_p$, the map
\begin{align*}
V_p &\to \mathbb{P}^n_k \\
q &\mapsto [\widetilde G_0(q) : \cdots : \widetilde G_n(q)]
\end{align*}
is well-defined (the tuple is never identically zero, since $\widetilde G_j(q) \neq 0$ throughout $V_p$) and is a morphism (by the standard criterion that a tuple of regular functions, not all vanishing, defines a morphism into projective space). It agrees with $\varphi$ on $V_p \cap \operatorname{dom}(\varphi)$, since both are presentations of the same rational map.
[/step]