 following, we identify those cuts that might violate the condition given in Lemma \[lem:spanning-tree-characterization\] for a (non-strictly) reroutable flow. We then show that this class of cuts forms a semi-lattice. This allows us to apply an uncrossing of the flow paths that iteratively eliminates the problematic cuts while maintaining reroutability.

#### Bad cuts

Let $x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow and let $C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. An arc $\bar{a} \in C$ is *$(x, C)$-bad* if there is an arc $a \in C$ and a path $P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}$ with $x(P) > 0$. A cut $C$ is *$x$-bad* if all arcs $\bar{a} \in C$ are $(x, C)$-bad.

\[lem:good-cuts\] Let $x$ be a reroutable flow for capacities $u \equiv 1$. Let $C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. If $\sum_{a \in C} (1 - x(a)) < 1$ then $C$ is $x$-bad.

By contradiction assume $C$ is not $x$-bad. Then there must be an arc $\bar{a} \in C$ that is not $(x, C)$-bad. This implies that $\sum_{P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}} x(P) = 0$ for every $a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. In particular, $\rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(a)$ for all $a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. Since all flow in the rerouting of $x$ for failure of $\bar{a}$ needs to cross $C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, we obtain $\sum_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} \geq x(\bar{a})$. Adding $1 - x(\bar{a})$ to both sides of this inequality yields a contradiction.

\[lem
following, we identify those cuts that might violate the circumstance render in Lemma   \[lem: spanning - tree - characterization\ ] for a (non - strictly) reroutable menstruation. We then testify that this class of cuts shape a semi - wicket. This allows us to apply an uncrossing of the flow paths that iteratively eliminates the baffling cuts while maintaining reroutability. 

 # # # # regretful cuts 

 Let $ x$ be an $ s$-$t$-flow and let $ C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $ t$-separating cut. An arc $ \bar{a } \in C$ is * $ (x, C)$-bad * if there is an discharge $ a \in C$ and a path $ P \in { \mathcal{P}_{\bar{a } \rightarrow a}}$ with $ x(P) > 0$. A cut $ C$ is * $ x$-bad * if all arcs $ \bar{a } \in C$ are $ (x, C)$-bad. 

 \[lem: adept - cuts\ ] Let $ x$ be a reroutable flow for capacities $ u \equiv 1$. permit $ C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $ t$-separating cut. If $ \sum_{a \in C } (1 - x(a) ) < 1 $ then $ C$ is $ x$-bad. 

 By contradiction assume $ C$ is not $ x$-bad. Then there must be an arc $ \bar{a } \in C$ that is not $ (x, C)$-bad. This imply that $ \sum_{P \in { \mathcal{P}_{\bar{a } \rightarrow a } } } x(P) = 0 $ for every $ a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. In particular, $ \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a } = \rcap{x}{a } = 1 - x(a)$ for all $ a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. Since all flow in the rerouting of $ x$ for failure of $ \bar{a}$ need to cross $ C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, we obtain $ \sum_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\ } } \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a } \geq x(\bar{a})$. Adding $ 1 - x(\bar{a})$ to both sides of this inequality yields a contradiction. 

 \[lem
 foplowing, we identify thost cuts that might violatx the ckndition given in Lemma \[lem:spanning-trxe-chqracttgization\] for a (non-strkctly) rerlutable dlow. Qe then show that bkis cmwss mh cuts forms a xemi-lattica. This allows gs tl apply an uncrossing of the flow pwths thst iteratively ejimimwtes nht problematic cuts while maintainjng rermutability.

#### Bac cuts

Let $x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow ajd lft $C \in \mathcal{C}$ bf a $t$-separajjng xut. An arc $\bxr{a} \in C$ is *$(x, C)$-bad* if jhere is an arc $a \in C$ and a patf $P \iu {\mathcal{P}_{\bqr{q} \rlchtarrow a}}$ xith $x(I) > 0$. A cut $C$ is *$x$-bad* ix all atcs $\bar{a} \in C$ sre $(x, X)$-bad.

\[lem:good-cuts\] Let $x$ be a reroutable fjow for cdpccities $u \equiv 1$. Let $X \un \majhcal{W}$ be q $t$-repzretihg cut. If $\sum_{a \in C} (1 - x(a)) < 1$ theb $C$ is $x$-bad.

By contrsdybyion assume $D$ is njt $x$-bad. Then there must be an arc $\bar{a} \in C$ fhat is not $(x, C)$-bad. This implies that $\sum_{P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\far{a} \rightarrow a}}} x(P) = 0$ for every $a \in C \setminus \{\tar{a}\}$. Mn paxblculxe, $\gcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(a)$ for all $a \in C \setmighs \{\bsr{a}\}$. Since all nlow in the reroutonh ps $x$ for failute of $\bcd{a}$ needs to cross $C \detminuf \{\bar{q}\}$, we obtayn $\sim_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\var{a}]{x}{a} \geq x(\yar{q})$. Adding $1 - x(\bar{a})$ tl both sider of this inequality yields a coutradidtion.

\[lem
following, we identify those cuts that might condition in Lemma for a (non-strictly) that class of cuts a semi-lattice. This us to apply an uncrossing of flow paths that iteratively eliminates the problematic cuts while maintaining reroutability. #### Bad Let $x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow and let $C \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating An $\bar{a} C$ *$(x, C)$-bad* if there is an arc $a \in C$ and a path $P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} a}}$ with $x(P) > 0$. A cut $C$ *$x$-bad* if all arcs \in C$ are $(x, C)$-bad. Let be a flow capacities \equiv 1$. Let \in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. If $\sum_{a \in C} (1 - x(a)) < 1$ then $C$ $x$-bad. By $C$ is $x$-bad. there be an arc C$ that is not $(x, C)$-bad. $\sum_{P \in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}} x(P) = 0$ every $a C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. In particular, $\rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(a)$ for all $a C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$. Since all flow in the rerouting of $x$ for failure of $\bar{a}$ cross $C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, obtain $\sum_{a \in \setminus \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} x(\bar{a})$. $1 - to both sides of this inequality yields a contradiction. \[lem
 following, we identify those cUts that migHt vioLatE thE cOndiTion Given in Lemma \[leM:SpanNing-tree-characterizatiOn\] for A (nON-strICtLy) rerOutable FLoW. wE thEn ShOw tHaT ThIs claSs oF cuts foRms a semi-laTtiCe. this allows us TO aPply an uncrOssIng of the flow PatHs that ItEraTIvely EliMinatEs the pROblemaTic cuts whIlE MaintaINing rerOUTaBiliTy.

#### Bad cuts

Let $x$ be an $S$-$T$-fLOw and let $C \in \matHcal{C}$ bE a $T$-SePARatIng Cut. An arc $\baR{a} \In C$ is *$(X, c)$-bad* if tHErE IS An aRC $a \in C$ and a path $p \in {\mathcal{P}_{\BAr{a} \RightaRrOw a}}$ WIth $x(P) > 0$. A Cut $C$ iS *$x$-BAd* iF all arcs $\bar{A} \in C$ Are $(x, C)$-bad.

\[lEm:good-CUts\] Let $x$ BE a rerouTable fLow For CapaCItIeS $u \eQuIV 1$. LeT $c \iN \maTHcaL{C}$ be a $t$-sePaRaTing cUt. If $\SUM_{A \In C} (1 - x(A)) < 1$ thEn $C$ iS $x$-bad.

by contradictiOn aSsumE $c$ is Not $x$-bAd. TheN theRe Must bE an arc $\Bar{a} \iN C$ That is not $(x, C)$-bad. THis iMplies thaT $\suM_{P \In {\mAtHcal{P}_{\BAr{a} \rigHtaRroW a}}} x(P) = 0$ for Every $a \iN c \seTmINUS \{\bAr{a}\}$. In particular, $\rcaP[\bAR{A}]{x}{A} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1 - x(A)$ for alL $A \iN C \SEtminus \{\bAr{A}\}$. SiNce aLL Flow iN the RErOuting of $X$ for faILuRe Of $\bar{a}$ nEeDs to crOsS $C \sEtmInus \{\bAR{a}\}$, we Obtain $\Sum_{a \in C \sEtminUS \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{A} \Geq x(\bar{a})$. AddinG $1 - X(\bAR{A})$ tO Both SidEs of this ineQualITy yiElds A CoNtrADictiOn.

\[lem
 following, we identify th ose cuts t hat m igh t v io late  the  condition giv e n in  Lemma \[lem:spanning- tree- ch a ract e ri zatio n\] for a( n on- st ri ctl y) re routa ble  flow.We then sh owth at this clas s  o f cuts for msa semi-latti ce.  Thisal low s  us t o a pplyan unc r ossing  of the f lo w  paths that it e r at ivel y eliminates thep ro b lematic cuts w hile m ai n ta i n ing  re routabilit y. 

### #  Bad cu t sL e t $ x $ be an $s$-$ t$-flow and let  $C \i n\ma t hcal{C }$ be  a $t$ -separating  cut . An arc$\bar{ a } \in C $  is *$( x, C)$ -ba d*if t h er eisan arc $a  \i n  C$  and a p at h$P \i n {\ m a t h cal{ P}_ {\ba r{a}\rightarrow a }}$  wit h  $x (P) >  0$.A cu t$C$ i s *$x$ -bad*  i f all arcs $\ba r{a}  \in C$ a re$( x,C) $-bad . 

\[le m:g ood -cuts\]  Let $x $  be  a r e ro utable flow for ca pa c i ti es $u \e quiv 1 $ .Le t  $C \in\m ath cal{ C } $ bea $t $ -s eparatin g cut. If  $ \sum_{a  \ in C}(1  -x(a )) <1 $ th en $C$  is $x$- bad.By contradicti o n assume $C$i sn o t$ x$-b ad.  Then there  mus t  bean a r c$\b a r{a}\in C $t ha t  is not $(x, C)$-ba d.  Thisimpli es that $\sum _{P \in {\ m a t hcal{P}_ {\ba r {a }  \rightarrow a }}} x (P) = 0$ f o r every$a \i n C \set minus \{\ b a r{a}\}$.  In  pa rti cul a r ,$\rcap[\bar{a } ] {x}{ a}  = \rca p{x }{a} =1 -  x( a)$  fo rall $a \i n C \set mi nu s\{ \ba r{a}\ } $. Since  a llfl owin th e  rerou tingof $ x$  f o r f ailureo f$ \ bar{ a} $need s t ocross  $C\ set minus \ {\bar{a}\ }$, we o bt ai n $\sum _{a \in C \se tm inus \{\ba r{ a}\ }} \rc a p [\bar{a} ]{x}{a} \geq x(\bar{a}) $ . Addin g $ 1 - x (\ba r{a})$ to  bo th sid eso f this  inequ ality  y iel d s  a co n t ra dic ti on.

\[lem 
 following,_we identify_those cuts that might_violate the_condition_given in_Lemma \[lem:spanning-tree-characterization\]_for a (non-strictly)_reroutable flow. We_then show that this_class of cuts_forms_a semi-lattice. This allows us to apply an uncrossing of the flow paths that_iteratively_eliminates the_problematic_cuts_while maintaining reroutability.

#### Bad cuts

Let_$x$ be an $s$-$t$-flow and_let $C_\in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating cut. An arc_$\bar{a}_\in C$ is_*$(x, C)$-bad* if there is an arc $a \in_C$ and a path $P \in_{\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow a}}$_with_$x(P)_> 0$. A cut_$C$ is *$x$-bad* if all arcs_$\bar{a} \in C$ are $(x, C)$-bad.

\[lem:good-cuts\]_Let $x$ be a reroutable flow for_capacities $u \equiv 1$. Let $C_\in \mathcal{C}$ be a $t$-separating_cut. If_$\sum_{a \in C} (1 -_x(a)) < 1$_then $C$_is $x$-bad.

By contradiction_assume $C$ is not $x$-bad. Then_there must be_an arc $\bar{a} \in C$ that_is_not $(x, C)$-bad._This_implies_that $\sum_{P_\in {\mathcal{P}_{\bar{a} \rightarrow_a}}}_x(P) =_0$_for every $a \in C \setminus_\{\bar{a}\}$._In particular, $\rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a} = \rcap{x}{a} = 1_- x(a)$ for all_$a_\in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$._Since all flow in the_rerouting of $x$ for failure of_$\bar{a}$ needs_to cross_$C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}$, we obtain $\sum_{a \in C \setminus \{\bar{a}\}} \rcap[\bar{a}]{x}{a}_\geq x(\bar{a})$. Adding $1 - x(\bar{a})$_to both sides of_this inequality_yields_a contradiction.

\[lem