[guided]Now take an arbitrary witness from the statement. Thus we have $(\sigma,q)\in\tau$, a stronger condition $p\leq q$, and a name $\mu\in M$ such that
\begin{align*}
p\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\varphi(\sigma,\mu,\zeta).
\end{align*}
Define the corresponding input
\begin{align*}
a:=((\sigma,q),p).
\end{align*}
Because $(\sigma,q)\in\tau$ and $p\leq q$, this $a$ belongs to the set $A$ constructed earlier. Also $(\mu,p)\in W_a$, since $p\leq p$ and $p$ forces $\varphi(\sigma,\mu,\zeta)$. Therefore $W_a$ is nonempty, so the choice construction selected a pair $(\nu_a,r_a)\in C_a$. By the definition of $C_a$, this means
\begin{align*}
r_a\leq p
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
r_a\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\varphi(\sigma,\nu_a,\zeta).
\end{align*}
By the definition of $B$ and the choice of $\alpha$, we also have $\nu_a\in B\subseteq V_\alpha^M$.
It remains to prove that the selected name $\nu_a$ is forced equal to the arbitrary name $\mu$. The reason is uniqueness. Since $(\sigma,q)\in\tau$, the condition $q$ forces that $\sigma$ is an element of $\tau$. Because $p\leq q$, monotonicity of forcing gives
\begin{align*}
p\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\sigma\in\tau.
\end{align*}
Since $r_a\leq p$, monotonicity also gives
\begin{align*}
r_a\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\sigma\in\tau
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
r_a\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\varphi(\sigma,\mu,\zeta).
\end{align*}
On the other hand, the hypothesis says
\begin{align*}
1_{\mathbb{P}}\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\forall x\in\tau\,\exists! y\,\varphi(x,y,\zeta).
\end{align*}
Since every condition is stronger than $1_{\mathbb{P}}$, the condition $r_a$ also forces this uniqueness statement. Thus, below $r_a$, the object satisfying $\varphi(\sigma,y,\zeta)$ is unique; but $r_a$ forces that both $\nu_a$ and $\mu$ satisfy this same formula with input $\sigma$ and parameter $\zeta$. Therefore
\begin{align*}
r_a\Vdash_{\mathbb{P}}\nu_a=\mu.
\end{align*}[/guided]