[step:Construct unique recursive approximations on each set ordinal]
Fix an ordinal $\theta$. A $\theta$-approximation means a set function $h$ such that $\operatorname{dom}(h)$ is an ordinal $\gamma \subseteq \theta$ and, for every $\beta \in \gamma$,
\begin{align*}
h(\beta) = G(h|_\beta).
\end{align*}
Here $\gamma \subseteq \theta$ is ordinal inclusion; equivalently, every element of $\gamma$ is an element of $\theta$, and if $\gamma \neq \theta$ then $\gamma \in \theta$.
The empty function is a $\theta$-approximation, so the class of $\theta$-approximations is nonempty.
We first prove that any two $\theta$-approximations agree on their common domain. Let $h$ and $k$ be $\theta$-approximations, with domains $\gamma$ and $\delta$. Suppose that $h|_{\gamma \cap \delta} \neq k|_{\gamma \cap \delta}$. Since $\gamma \cap \delta$ is an ordinal, there is a least ordinal $\beta \in \gamma \cap \delta$ such that $h(\beta) \neq k(\beta)$. For every $\xi \in \beta$, minimality gives $h(\xi) = k(\xi)$, hence
\begin{align*}
h|_\beta = k|_\beta.
\end{align*}
Because $h$ and $k$ both satisfy the recursive rule,
\begin{align*}
h(\beta) = G(h|_\beta) = G(k|_\beta) = k(\beta),
\end{align*}
contradicting the choice of $\beta$. Therefore any two $\theta$-approximations agree on their common domain.
We now form the maximal compatible approximation as a set, rather than taking an unrestricted class union. Define the set
\begin{align*}
D_\theta := \{\beta \in \theta : \text{there is a $\theta$-approximation $h$ with $\beta \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$}\}.
\end{align*}
This is a set by Separation from the set $\theta$. For each $\beta \in D_\theta$, compatibility gives a unique set $y$ such that $h(\beta)=y$ for some $\theta$-approximation $h$ with $\beta \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$. By the Axiom Schema of Replacement applied to the functional class relation just described, the graph
\begin{align*}
A_\theta := \{(\beta,y) : \beta \in D_\theta \text{ and } y=h(\beta) \text{ for some $\theta$-approximation $h$ with $\beta \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$}\}
\end{align*}
is a set. The same uniqueness shows that $A_\theta$ is a set function with domain $D_\theta$.
The domain $D_\theta$ is an ordinal. Indeed, if $\beta \in D_\theta$ and $\xi \in \beta$, choose a $\theta$-approximation $h$ with $\beta \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$. Since $\operatorname{dom}(h)$ is an ordinal and $\xi \in \beta \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$, we have $\xi \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$, hence $\xi \in D_\theta$. Thus $D_\theta$ is transitive; as a transitive subset of the ordinal $\theta$, it is an ordinal. Write $\lambda := D_\theta$, so $\lambda \subseteq \theta$.
Moreover, for every $\beta \in \lambda$, choosing a $\theta$-approximation $h$ with $\beta \in \operatorname{dom}(h)$ gives
\begin{align*}
A_\theta|_\beta = h|_\beta
\end{align*}
by compatibility, and hence
\begin{align*}
A_\theta(\beta) = h(\beta) = G(h|_\beta) = G(A_\theta|_\beta).
\end{align*}
Thus $A_\theta$ is itself a $\theta$-approximation.
If $\lambda \neq \theta$, then $\lambda \in \theta$. Define a set function $A_\theta^+$ with domain $\lambda + 1$ by
\begin{align*}
A_\theta^+|_\lambda &= A_\theta, \\
A_\theta^+(\lambda) &= G(A_\theta).
\end{align*}
Then $A_\theta^+$ is a $\theta$-approximation strictly extending $A_\theta$. In particular, $\lambda \in \operatorname{dom}(A_\theta^+)$, so $\lambda \in D_\theta = \lambda$, contradicting the irreflexivity of ordinal membership. Hence $\lambda = \theta$. Therefore $A_\theta$ is a recursive set function on $\theta$.
Uniqueness on $\theta$ follows from the same first-disagreement argument. If $h,k$ are set functions with domain $\theta$ satisfying the recursive rule and $h \neq k$, then the least $\beta \in \theta$ with $h(\beta) \neq k(\beta)$ satisfies $h|_\beta = k|_\beta$, so
\begin{align*}
h(\beta) = G(h|_\beta) = G(k|_\beta) = k(\beta),
\end{align*}
a contradiction. Thus the recursive set function on $\theta$ is unique.
[/step]