[step:Contract an augmenting path by proving the required local normalization]
Assume that $G$ has an $M$-augmenting path. Choose one and write it as
\begin{align*}
P=(v_0,e_1,v_1,\dots,e_k,v_k)
\end{align*}
with exposed endpoints $v_0$ and $v_k$. If $P$ avoids $V(B)$, then the same vertex and edge sequence is an $M/B$-augmenting path in $G/B$.
Suppose that $P$ meets $V(B)$. Let $r$ be the exposed root of the tree of $F$ containing $B$, and let $H$ be the tree path in $F$ from $r$ to $b$. If $H$ is non-empty, it starts with an edge outside $M$ and ends with an edge in $M$, because $r$ and $b$ are even-level vertices. If $H$ is empty, then $r=b$ and the base is exposed.
Choose an orientation of $P$ with the following property. Let $v_j$ be the last vertex of the oriented path that lies in $V(B)$. If $j<k$, then the exit edge $e_{j+1}$ is outside $M$. Such an orientation exists: every exterior edge incident with a non-base vertex of $B$ is outside $M$, because that non-base vertex is matched internally in the blossom. The only exterior edge incident with $B$ that can belong to $M$ is the possible exterior matching edge at the base $b$. Hence at most one of the two oriented last-exit edges, obtained from the two possible orientations of $P$, can be matched. If $P$ has an endpoint in $B$, that endpoint must be $b$, since all vertices of $B\setminus\{b\}$ are matched internally; then there is no exit edge to check. Reversing $P$ if necessary, assume this orientation has been chosen.
Let $v_j$ be the last blossom vertex in this orientation, and let $T$ be the suffix
\begin{align*}
T=(v_j,e_{j+1},v_{j+1},\dots,e_k,v_k),
\end{align*}
where the suffix is just the vertex $v_j$ if $j=k$. By definition of $j$, no vertex after $v_j$ in $T$ lies in $V(B)$.
If $v_j=b$, let $R$ be the empty route from $b$ to $v_j$. If $v_j\neq b$, let $R$ be the route from $b$ to $v_j$ given by the routing claim: it starts with an edge outside $M$, alternates inside the blossom, and ends with an edge in $M$. Concatenate the forest stem $H$, the route $R$, and the suffix $T$, identifying the common endpoints $b$ and $v_j$. This gives a finite $M$-alternating walk from the exposed vertex $r$ to the exposed vertex $v_k$. Indeed, the join between $H$ and $R$ is alternating because $H$, when non-empty, ends with an edge in $M$ and $R$, when non-empty, starts outside $M$. The join between $R$ and $T$ is alternating because either $j=k$, or the chosen orientation gives $e_{j+1}\notin M$ while $R$ ends in $M$ when $v_j\neq b$. If $v_j=b$, then either $H$ is empty and the first edge of $T$ is outside $M$, or $H$ ends in $M$ and the chosen orientation again gives $e_{j+1}\notin M$.
Now contract this alternating walk. Internal edges of the blossom route $R$ become loops at $\beta$ and are discarded, while the stem $H$ and the suffix $T$ keep their matching statuses under $q_E$. Hence the contracted sequence is a finite $M/B$-alternating walk in $G/B$. Its endpoints are exposed with respect to $M/B$: the endpoint $v_k$ is exposed in $G$ and lies outside $B$ unless $j=k$, while the starting endpoint is $r$ if $r\notin B$ and is $\beta$ if $r=b$. In the latter case $b$ is exposed in $M$, so $\beta$ is exposed in $M/B$.
[claim:An alternating walk with exposed endpoints contains an augmenting path]
Let $W$ be a finite $N$-alternating walk in a graph, where $N$ is a matching, and suppose the first and last vertices of $W$ are exposed with respect to $N$. Then $W$ contains a simple $N$-augmenting path.
[/claim]
[proof]
Write
\begin{align*}
W=(w_0,f_1,w_1,\dots,f_m,w_m),
\end{align*}
where $w_0$ and $w_m$ are exposed with respect to $N$, $f_t=\{w_{t-1},w_t\}$ for $1\leq t\leq m$, and the edge statuses of $f_1,\dots,f_m$ alternate. Since $w_0$ and $w_m$ are exposed, the first and last edges, when they exist, satisfy $f_1\notin N$ and $f_m\notin N$.
Among all finite $N$-alternating walks
\begin{align*}
Z=(z_0,h_1,z_1,\dots,h_s,z_s)
\end{align*}
whose endpoints $z_0,z_s$ are exposed with respect to $N$ and whose first and last edges, when they exist, lie outside $N$, choose one with $s$ minimal. Such a walk exists because $W$ itself has these properties.
We prove that $Z$ is simple. Suppose $z_a=z_c$ for some $0\leq a<c\leq s$, and choose such a pair with $c-a$ minimal. Delete the closed subwalk
\begin{align*}
(z_a,h_{a+1},z_{a+1},\dots,h_c,z_c)
\end{align*}
and concatenate the remaining prefix and suffix. The resulting finite walk is
\begin{align*}
Z'=(z_0,h_1,z_1,\dots,z_a,h_{c+1},z_{c+1},\dots,h_s,z_s),
\end{align*}
with the evident omissions when $a=0$ or $c=s$.
If $a=0$, then $z_c=z_0$ is exposed. The edge $h_{c+1}$, when it exists, cannot belong to $N$, because no edge of $N$ is incident with the exposed vertex $z_0$. Hence $Z'$ still begins with an unmatched edge. If $c=s$, the same argument at the exposed vertex $z_s=z_a$ shows that $h_a$, when it exists, is outside $N$, so $Z'$ still ends with an unmatched edge.
It remains to check alternation at the only possible new splice, which occurs when $a>0$ and $c<s$. The two spliced edges are $h_a$ and $h_{c+1}$, both incident with the same vertex $z_a=z_c$. If they both belonged to $N$, then the matching $N$ would contain two distinct edges incident with one vertex, impossible. If they both lay outside $N$, then the alternating sequence around the deleted closed subwalk forces the two edges of the deleted subwalk incident with $z_a=z_c$, namely $h_{a+1}$ and $h_c$, to belong to $N$. These are distinct matching edges incident with the same vertex, again impossible. Therefore $h_a$ and $h_{c+1}$ have opposite matching status, and the concatenated walk $Z'$ is still $N$-alternating.
The endpoints of $Z'$ are the same exposed vertices as the endpoints of $Z$, and its first and last edges, when present, remain outside $N$ by the endpoint check above. Also $Z'$ has fewer edges than $Z$, contradicting the minimal choice of $Z$. Thus $Z$ has no repeated vertices. It is an $N$-alternating simple path whose endpoints are exposed with respect to $N$, so it is an $N$-augmenting path.
[/proof]
Applying the walk-extraction claim with $N=M/B$ gives a simple $M/B$-augmenting path in $G/B$. Therefore $G/B$ has an $M/B$-augmenting path.
[/step]