[guided]We have, from the previous step, that the radial geodesic $\gamma_p(\cdot, a)$ in normal coordinates is the straight line $x(t) = t\xi$ where $\xi = L^{-1}(a)$. We now extract the vanishing of $\Gamma_{jk}^i(p)$ from this geometric fact. The plan: (i) substitute the straight line into the geodesic equation, (ii) extend the resulting identity from a neighbourhood of $0$ to all of $\mathbb{R}^n$ via polynomial identity, (iii) deduce the symmetric part of $(\Gamma_{jk}^i(p))_{j,k}$ vanishes, and (iv) use torsion-freeness to upgrade this to vanishing of every $\Gamma_{jk}^i(p)$.
In any chart, the geodesic equation for a curve $x: I \to \mathbb{R}^n$ is the second-order ODE system
\begin{align*}
\ddot x_i(t) + \sum_{j, k = 1}^n \Gamma_{jk}^i(x(t))\, \dot x_j(t)\, \dot x_k(t) &= 0, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, n,
\end{align*}
where $\Gamma_{jk}^i$ are the Christoffel symbols of the Levi-Civita connection in the chart $(U, \varphi)$. The bilinear form $\Gamma_{jk}^i(x)\, \dot x_j\, \dot x_k$ is the "covariant correction" to coordinate acceleration: it measures how much the chart's coordinate axes themselves bend, so that a curve with zero coordinate acceleration is geodesic only when the connection coefficients act trivially on its velocity.
Why does this give us information at $p$? Because we already know — from the previous step — a family of geodesics whose coordinate acceleration is identically zero. For the straight line $x(t) = t\xi$ we compute the velocity and acceleration directly:
\begin{align*}
\dot x_j(t) = \xi_j, \qquad \ddot x_i(t) = 0.
\end{align*}
Substituting into the geodesic equation and evaluating at $t = 0$ (where $x(0) = 0 = \varphi(p)$, so $\Gamma_{jk}^i(x(0)) = \Gamma_{jk}^i(p)$):
\begin{align*}
0 + \sum_{j,k=1}^n \Gamma_{jk}^i(p)\, \xi_j\, \xi_k &= 0, \qquad i = 1, \ldots, n.
\end{align*}
That is,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j,k=1}^n \Gamma_{jk}^i(p)\, \xi_j\, \xi_k &= 0 \qquad \text{for every } \xi \in \mathbb{R}^n \text{ in a neighbourhood of } 0. \tag{$\star$}
\end{align*}
Why only "in a neighbourhood of $0$" and not "for all $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$"? Because we only know straight lines $t \mapsto t\xi$ are geodesics for $\xi$ small enough that the line stays inside $L^{-1}(B(0, \delta))$ — i.e., for $\xi$ in some open neighbourhood of $0$. Concretely, as $a$ varies over $B(0, \delta) \subseteq T_pM$, the substitution $\xi = L^{-1}(a)$ produces $\xi$ in the open ball $L^{-1}(B(0, \delta)) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$.
We now extend $(\star)$ to all of $\mathbb{R}^n$. The left-hand side, viewed as a function of $\xi$, is a homogeneous quadratic polynomial $Q^i(\xi) = \xi^\top A^i \xi$ where $A^i$ is the $n \times n$ matrix with $(j,k)$-entry $\Gamma_{jk}^i(p)$. A polynomial that vanishes on a non-empty open subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ vanishes identically: its Taylor coefficients at any interior point of the open set must all be zero, and a polynomial is determined by its Taylor coefficients. Hence $(\star)$ holds for **all** $\xi \in \mathbb{R}^n$:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{j,k=1}^n \Gamma_{jk}^i(p)\, \xi_j\, \xi_k &= 0 \qquad \text{for every } \xi \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{align*}
Next, we extract the vanishing of the symmetric part of $A^i = (\Gamma_{jk}^i(p))_{j,k}$. The standard polarisation argument: substituting $\xi + \eta$ for $\xi$ and subtracting,
\begin{align*}
0 = (\xi+\eta)^\top A^i (\xi+\eta) - \xi^\top A^i \xi - \eta^\top A^i \eta = \xi^\top (A^i + (A^i)^\top) \eta \qquad \text{for all } \xi, \eta \in \mathbb{R}^n.
\end{align*}
A bilinear form vanishing on $\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n$ has zero matrix, so $A^i + (A^i)^\top = 0$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\Gamma_{jk}^i(p) + \Gamma_{kj}^i(p) &= 0 \qquad \text{for all } i, j, k \in \{1, \ldots, n\}.
\end{align*}
Why does the quadratic form not detect the antisymmetric part? Because $\xi^\top (A^i - (A^i)^\top) \xi = 0$ for every $\xi$ — antisymmetric matrices are invisible to quadratic forms.
Finally, we close the gap with torsion-freeness. The Levi-Civita connection is **torsion-free**, which in coordinates is the symmetry $\Gamma_{jk}^i = \Gamma_{kj}^i$, valid identically as a function on $U$, and in particular at $p$. Adding the two relations:
\begin{align*}
2 \Gamma_{jk}^i(p) = \Gamma_{jk}^i(p) + \Gamma_{kj}^i(p) = 0,
\end{align*}
hence $\Gamma_{jk}^i(p) = 0$ for all $i, j, k$. This is property (3), completing the proof.
Two remarks on the structure of the argument. First, torsion-freeness was essential: without it, the antisymmetric part of $(\Gamma_{jk}^i(p))_{j,k}$ could be non-zero, and on manifolds with torsion normal coordinates do not in general kill all Christoffel symbols at $p$. Second, $\Gamma_{jk}^i(p) = 0$ does **not** mean $\Gamma_{jk}^i$ vanishes in a neighbourhood of $p$ — it vanishes only at the centre point. The first derivatives $\partial_l \Gamma_{jk}^i(p)$ encode the curvature tensor, so normal coordinates "linearise" the metric at one point but preserve all second-order curvature information.[/guided]