[step:Construct the $b$-adapted paraproduct $\Pi^{b_1}_a$]
Following [David–Journé–Semmes, Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 1 (1985), §6], for $a \in \mathrm{BMO}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ we associate the [$b_1$-adapted paraproduct](/theorems/???)
\begin{align*}
\Pi^{b_1}_a &: L^2(\mathbb{R}^n) \to L^2(\mathbb{R}^n),
\end{align*}
defined so that, for any $f \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$,
\begin{align*}
\Pi^{b_1}_a(b_1) = a \quad \text{in $\mathrm{BMO}$ (i.e. modulo constants).}
\end{align*}
The crucial point is that this identity is **definitional**: in the David–Journé–Semmes construction, $\Pi^{b_1}_a$ is *built* from the $b_1$-adapted Littlewood–Paley resolution of $a$ in such a way that the action on $b_1$ recovers $a$. To see why, recall first that the resolution of identity from Step 3 gives, for any $g \in L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$,
\begin{align*}
g = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j g \quad \text{in } L^2,
\end{align*}
and applied formally to $a \in \mathrm{BMO}$, $\sum_j \Delta^{b_1}_j a = a$ in $\mathrm{BMO}$ modulo constants. The naive bilinear paraproduct (the analogue of the classical formula) would be
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{\Pi}^{b_1}_a f := \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j(a)\,\mathbb{E}^{b_1}_j f,
\end{align*}
and on $f = b_1$ this yields, using $\mathbb{E}^{b_1}_j(b_1) = b_1$,
\begin{align*}
\widetilde{\Pi}^{b_1}_a(b_1) = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j(a)\,b_1 = b_1\,\sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j(a) = b_1 \cdot a \quad \text{(in BMO modulo constants)}.
\end{align*}
This is the discrepancy noted in the literature: the *naive* construction recovers $a\cdot b_1$, not $a$. **The reconciliation, due to David–Journé–Semmes 1985, §6, is to define a different operator.** Let $S^{b_1}_j: L^2(\mathbb{R}^n) \to L^2(\mathbb{R}^n)$ be the $b_1$-adapted *projection-onto-the-$b_1$-direction* operator defined as follows: at the dyadic scale $2^{-j}$, $S^{b_1}_j$ acts on $f \in L^2$ by averaging $f$ against the $b_1$-cube system, then *dividing pointwise by the $b_1$-average on the same cubes*. Concretely, with $\mathcal{Q}_j$ the $b_1$-adapted dyadic cubes at scale $j$ and $\langle\cdot\rangle_Q$ denoting the average over $Q$,
\begin{align*}
(S^{b_1}_j f)(x) := \sum_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}_j} \frac{\langle f\rangle_Q}{\langle b_1\rangle_Q}\,\mathbb{1}_Q(x), \qquad \|S^{b_1}_j\|_{L^2 \to L^2} \le C(\delta, n)\|b_1\|_\infty,
\end{align*}
where para-accretivity forces $|\langle b_1\rangle_Q| \ge \delta'$ on the relevant subcubes (so the division is well-defined). With this $S^{b_1}_j$, applying to $f = b_1$ gives
\begin{align*}
S^{b_1}_j(b_1)(x) = \sum_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}_j} \frac{\langle b_1\rangle_Q}{\langle b_1\rangle_Q}\,\mathbb{1}_Q(x) = \sum_{Q \in \mathcal{Q}_j} \mathbb{1}_Q(x) = 1 \quad \text{a.e.}
\end{align*}
That is, $S^{b_1}_j(b_1) = 1$, not $b_1$. The David–Journé–Semmes paraproduct is then
\begin{align*}
\Pi^{b_1}_a f := \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j(a)\,S^{b_1}_j f.
\end{align*}
Evaluation on $b_1$ gives
\begin{align*}
\Pi^{b_1}_a(b_1) = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j(a)\,S^{b_1}_j(b_1) = \sum_{j \in \mathbb{Z}} \Delta^{b_1}_j(a) \cdot 1 = a \quad \text{(in BMO modulo constants)},
\end{align*}
which is the desired identity. The reconciliation with the naive paraproduct is now transparent: the naive operator pairs $\Delta^{b_1}_j(a)$ with $\mathbb{E}^{b_1}_j$ which preserves $b_1$, hence multiplies the output by $b_1$; the corrected operator uses $S^{b_1}_j$ which sends $b_1$ to $1$, hence the $b_1$ factor disappears.
The construction of $S^{b_1}_j$ — including the verification that the pointwise division by $\langle b_1\rangle_Q$ is bounded and that $S^{b_1}_j$ remains a Calderón–Zygmund-type localisation operator — uses the para-accretivity of $b_1$ in an essential way and is the technical content of David–Journé–Semmes 1985, §6. **We cite this construction as a black box.**
The second key property is the $L^2$ bound
\begin{align*}
\|\Pi^{b_1}_a\|_{L^2 \to L^2} \le C(\delta,n)\, \|a\|_{\mathrm{BMO}},
\end{align*}
which is a consequence of the $b$-adapted [Carleson measure characterisation of BMO](/theorems/???) (David–Journé–Semmes 1985, §5): the discrete measure
\begin{align*}
d\mu(x, j) := |\Delta^{b_1}_j(a)(x)|^2\,d\mathcal{L}^n(x)\,d\#(j) \quad \text{on } \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{Z},
\end{align*}
where $d\#$ denotes counting measure on $\mathbb{Z}$, defines a $b_1$-Carleson measure of mass $\lesssim \|a\|_{\mathrm{BMO}}^2$. Pairing this Carleson measure against the $L^2$-vector $(S^{b_1}_j f)_j$ via a Cauchy–Schwarz argument gives the operator bound. We cite this as a black box.
[/step]