[guided]We fix the same data used in the exact construction. Let $(W_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ be an effective enumeration of the computably enumerable subsets of $\mathbb{N}$, and let $(\Phi_e)_{e \in \mathbb{N}}$ be an effective enumeration of oracle Turing functionals. For a finite set $B \subseteq \mathbb{N}$ and a stage $s \in \mathbb{N}$, the notation
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{e,s}^B(e)\downarrow
\end{align*}
means that the computation with oracle $B$ has halted by stage $s$ on input $e$. If this computation exists, its use is the natural number $u(e,B,s) \in \mathbb{N}$ such that the computation asks only oracle questions below $u(e,B,s)$.
The object being built is an increasing computable sequence of finite sets
\begin{align*}
A_0 \subseteq A_1 \subseteq A_2 \subseteq \cdots \subseteq \mathbb{N},
\end{align*}
and the final set is
\begin{align*}
A := \bigcup_{s=0}^{\infty} A_s.
\end{align*}
Because the sequence is computable and increases by finite extension, membership in the enumeration of $A$ is computably enumerable.
The priority ordering is
\begin{align*}
N_0 \prec P_0 \prec N_1 \prec P_1 \prec N_2 \prec P_2 \prec \cdots .
\end{align*}
The positive requirement $P_e$ is
\begin{align*}
W_e \text{ is infinite } \implies A \cap W_e \neq \varnothing,
\end{align*}
and the negative requirement $N_e$ is to make the predicate $\Phi_e^A(e)\downarrow$ have a computable approximation with finitely many changes. For this approximation, the construction maintains
\begin{align*}
g(e,s) \in \{0,1\},
\end{align*}
where $g(e,s)$ is the stage-$s$ guess for whether $\Phi_e^A(e)$ halts. The construction also maintains, for each $N_e$, either no protected computation or a protected computation $\Phi_{e,t}^{A_t}(e)\downarrow$ chosen at some stage $t \leq s$, together with a restraint $r_e(s) \in \mathbb{N}$. If no computation is protected, then
\begin{align*}
r_e(s)=0.
\end{align*}
The key point in the stage convention is that negative requirements must check computations against the current finite oracle, not against an obsolete oracle from before stronger same-stage actions. At stage $s+1$, start with
\begin{align*}
C_{s+1,0} := A_s.
\end{align*}
After the first $k$ requirements have been processed, let $C_{s+1,k}$ be the finite set obtained from $A_s$ by adding the witnesses enumerated so far at stage $s+1$. Thus, when $N_e$ is processed, all stronger same-stage positive actions have already been reflected in the finite oracle
\begin{align*}
B_{e,s+1} := C_{s+1,k(e,s+1)},
\end{align*}
where $k(e,s+1)$ is the number of requirements processed before $N_e$.
Now process $N_e$. If a previously protected computation of $N_e$ has been injured because a stronger requirement has enumerated a number below its protected use, cancel that computation. If no protected computation remains and
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{e,s+1}^{B_{e,s+1}}(e)\downarrow,
\end{align*}
then protect this current computation, set
\begin{align*}
r_e(s+1) := u(e,B_{e,s+1},s+1),
\end{align*}
and set
\begin{align*}
g(e,s+1)=1.
\end{align*}
If a protected computation remains after the cancellation check, retain its restraint and set
\begin{align*}
g(e,s+1)=1.
\end{align*}
If no protected computation remains and no new current computation is found, set
\begin{align*}
r_e(s+1)=0, \qquad g(e,s+1)=0.
\end{align*}
Now process $P_e$. If $P_e$ has already acted, it does nothing. If it has not acted, define $R_e(s+1)$ to be the maximum of the current restraints imposed by stronger negative requirements $N_i \prec P_e$, and define
\begin{align*}
R_e(s+1)=0
\end{align*}
when there is no positive stronger restraint. If there is an element
\begin{align*}
x \in W_{e,s+1}
\end{align*}
with
\begin{align*}
x > \max\{R_e(s+1),2e\},
\end{align*}
choose the least such $x$, add $x$ to the current finite oracle for the stage, and declare $P_e$ permanently satisfied. The inequality $x>R_e(s+1)$ protects stronger negative requirements, while $x>2e$ is the size bound later used to prove that $A$ is coinfinite.
After all requirements up to index $s+1$ have been processed, define $A_{s+1}$ to be the final current finite oracle. This is effective: at stage $s+1$ only finitely many requirements are examined, each set $W_{e,s+1}$ is finite, each oracle used in a computation test is finite, and the relation $\Phi_{e,s+1}^{B_{e,s+1}}(e)\downarrow$ is decidable from finite information. Therefore the map
\begin{align*}
g: \mathbb{N} \times \mathbb{N} &\to \{0,1\} \\
(e,s) &\mapsto g(e,s)
\end{align*}
is computable, and the sequence $(A_s)_{s \in \mathbb{N}}$ is a computable increasing sequence of finite sets.[/guided]