[guided]What should $\star \omega_K$ be? The defining identity at $\beta = \omega_K$ requires that $\star \omega_K$ is some $(n-p)$-form whose wedge against each $\omega_J$ ($|J|=p$) equals $\delta_{JK} \omega_g$. In particular, taking $J = K$ gives $\omega_K \wedge \star \omega_K = (\omega_K, \omega_K)_g \omega_g = \omega_g$. So we need an $(n-p)$-form that, wedged with $\omega_K$, produces $\omega_g$. The natural candidate is the basis $(n-p)$-form built from the indices *not* in $K$, namely $\omega_{K^c}$ — this is the unique basis multivector whose wedge with $\omega_K$ uses each $\omega_i$ exactly once and is therefore proportional to $\omega_g$. We compute the proportionality constant.
For increasing $K = \{k_1 < \cdots < k_p\}$ with complement $K^c = \{j_1 < \cdots < j_{n-p}\}$, the wedge $\omega_K \wedge \omega_{K^c} = \omega_{k_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_{k_p} \wedge \omega_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_{j_{n-p}}$ uses each $\omega_i$ exactly once. To match the canonical order $(1, 2, \ldots, n)$ defining $\omega_g$, we permute, picking up a sign equal to the sign of the permutation $(k_1, \ldots, k_p, j_1, \ldots, j_{n-p})$ relative to $(1, 2, \ldots, n)$. Call this sign $\varepsilon(K) \in \{+1, -1\}$ (the *shuffle sign* of $K$). Then
\begin{align*}
\omega_K \wedge \omega_{K^c} = \varepsilon(K) \cdot \omega_g.
\end{align*}
For the special case $K = \{1, \ldots, p\}$, the tuple $(1, \ldots, p, p+1, \ldots, n)$ is already in canonical order, no shuffles are required, and $\varepsilon(K) = +1$, so $\omega_K \wedge \omega_{K^c} = \omega_g$ directly.
This forces the sign in the definition of $\star$. Writing $\star \omega_K = c \cdot \omega_{K^c}$ for an unknown scalar $c$, the defining identity at $J = K$ reads $c \cdot \omega_K \wedge \omega_{K^c} = \omega_g$, i.e., $c \cdot \varepsilon(K) \omega_g = \omega_g$, forcing $c = \varepsilon(K)$ (since $\varepsilon(K)^2 = 1$). We therefore *define*
\begin{align*}
\star \omega_K := \varepsilon(K) \cdot \omega_{K^c} \in \Lambda^{n-p} T_x^* M,
\end{align*}
and extend linearly to all of $\Lambda^p T_x^* M$. The next two steps verify that this $\star \omega_K$ does satisfy the full defining identity $\omega_J \wedge \star \omega_K = \delta_{JK} \omega_g$ for every $J$, not just $J = K$.
The hypothesis stated in the theorem — "$I$ and $I^c$ arranged so that $\omega_{i_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_{i_p} \wedge \omega_{j_1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_{j_{n-p}} = \omega_g$" — is precisely the assertion $\varepsilon(I) = +1$. Under that hypothesis the formula simplifies to $\star \omega_I = \omega_{I^c}$, with no sign. The case $I = \{1, \ldots, p\}$ in the theorem's first display has $I^c = \{p+1, \ldots, n\}$, $\varepsilon(I) = +1$, and recovers $\star(\omega_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_p) = \omega_{p+1} \wedge \cdots \wedge \omega_n$ as a special case.[/guided]