@{-->}[rr]^-{\displaystyle{{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}}
&& \operatorname{W}^*_Z({Y},L_2)\,.
}$$

By Corollary \[coro:desc\] for $\bar A=\bar A_2\circ\bar A_1{^{-1}}$, there exists $A:L_1{\leadsto}L_2$ such that $f^!A\circ\bar A_1\simeq
\bar A_2$. By Proposition \[prop:gen-func\], ${{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}\circ{\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f,f^!A\circ \bar
A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_2}}$.

\[rema:feel-good\]Combined with Corollary \[coro:reasy\], the last two propositions tell us that, for a morphism $f:\bar {Y}\to {Y}$ in ${{\mathcal S}}_{X}$, it is not so important to know where a lax pull-back ${\operatorname{Pull}_{\bar A,f}}$ or a lax push-forward ${\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A}}$ exactly lands, as long as we keep track of classes in $\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}(?)/2$. Different choices can always be “realigned".

Relative alignments and lax module structure {#se:mock}
============================================

Now that we have a stable understanding of alignments, we introduce a relative version of this notion, allowing a line bundle on the base ${X}$ to intervene.

\[defi:X-aligned\]Let $\pi_{Y}:{Y}\to {X}$ be a scheme over ${X}$. We say that two line bundles $L_1$ and $L_2$ over ${Y}$ are *(quadratically) ${X}$-aligned* if $[L_1]=[L_2]\in\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}({Y})=\operatorname{\mathrm{coker}}(\pi_{Y}^*:\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({X})\to
\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({Y})/2)$. This amounts to the existence of a line bundle $K$ over ${X}$ and an alignment $\pi_{Y}^*K\otimes L_1{\leadsto}L_2$ as in Definition \[def
@{-->}[rr]^-{\displaystyle{{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft } } } } 
 & & \operatorname{W}^*_Z({Y},L_2)\, . 
 } $ $ 

 By Corollary   \[coro: desc\ ] for $ \bar A=\bar A_2\circ\bar A_1{^{-1}}$, there exists $ A: L_1{\leadsto}L_2 $ such that $ f^!A\circ\bar A_1\simeq 
 \bar A_2$. By Proposition   \[prop: gen - func\ ], $ { { A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}\circ{\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f, f^!A\circ \bar 
 A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_2}}$. 

 \[rema: feel - good\]Combined with Corollary   \[coro: reasy\ ], the last two proposition assure us that, for a morphism $ f:\bar { Y}\to { Y}$ in   $ { { \mathcal S}}_{X}$, it is not so important to know where a lax puff - back $ { \operatorname{Pull}_{\bar A, f}}$ or a lax push - fore $ { \operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A}}$ precisely lands, as long as we keep track of course in $ \operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}(?)/2$. Different choices can constantly be “ realign ". 

 Relative alignments and lax faculty structure { # se: mock } 
 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 

 nowadays that we suffer a stable understanding of alignments, we precede a relative version of this notion, allowing a argumentation bundle on the base   $ { X}$ to intervene. 

 \[defi :X - aligned\]Let $ \pi_{Y}:{Y}\to { X}$ be a scheme over   $ { X}$. We say that two line pack $ L_1 $ and $ L_2 $ over   $ { Y}$ are * (quadratically) $ { X}$-aligned * if $ [ L_1]=[L_2]\in\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}({Y})=\operatorname{\mathrm{coker}}(\pi_{Y}^*:\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({X})\to 
 \operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({Y})/2)$. This amounts to the existence of a line bundle $ K$ over   $ { X}$ and an alignment $ \pi_{Y}^*K\otimes L_1{\leadsto}L_2 $ as in Definition   \[def
@{-->}[rr]^-{\dlsplaystyle{{A}{}^{{\circlearrowltft}}}}
&& \operatorname{W}^*_E({Y},O_2)\,.
}$$

By Cocollary \[doro:desc\] for $\bar A=\bar A_2\circ\bar A_1{^{-1}}$, thece ezists $A:L_1{\leadsto}L_2$ such that $w^!A\circ\bar A_1\simeq
\bqr A_2$. Vy Proposivjon \[prop:nzn-fund\], ${{A}{}^{{\cixcoearrowleft}}}\cirg{\operatornake{Push}_{f,\bar A_1}}={\oparxtlrname{Push}_{f,f^!A\circ \bar
A_1}}={\operatorname{Ptsh}_{f,\bar A_2}}$.

\[gema:feel-good\]Coibintd rith Bovollary \[coro:reasy\], the last two prkpositimns tell us tnat, for a morphism $f:\bar {Y}\tl {Y}$ ln ${{\mathcal S}}_{X}$, it is not so impirtagr to know whdre a lax kunl-back ${\opetatorname{Pull}_{\bar A,f}}$ or a lax pusf-forwcrd ${\operatotuqme{Oosh}_{f,\bar A}}$ exectly jands, as lonn as we keep ttack of classex ii $\opwratorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}(?)/2$. Vifferent choices cag always te “realigned".

Relativw qlignkentv ana lab mkdnle struchurx {#se:mock}
============================================

Now that we hace a stable understsnqpmg of alignmsnts, wq yntroduce a relative version of this nouion, zllowing a line bundle in the base ${X}$ to intergene.

\[defi:X-wligned\]Let $\pi_{Y}:{Y}\to {X}$ be a scheme over ${X}$. We say that two mkne bmndldw $P_1$ and $L_2$ over ${Y}$ are *(quadratically) ${X}$-aligned* if $[L_1]=[J_2]\jn\ppvratorname{\mathrm{Plc}}_{X}({Y})=\operatorname{\mayhgm{vjker}}(\pi_{Y}^*:\operaturname{\matgrm{Pic}}({X})\to
\operatornwme{\mathtm{Pic}}({Y})/2)$. This amotnts to the existence of a line bundle $K$ ovvr ${X}$ qnd an alignment $\pn_{Y}^*K\otimes L_1{\lzadsto}K_2$ as on Definition \[def
@{-->}[rr]^-{\displaystyle{{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}} && \operatorname{W}^*_Z({Y},L_2)\,. }$$ By Corollary \[coro:desc\] A=\bar A_1{^{-1}}$, there $A:L_1{\leadsto}L_2$ such that Proposition ${{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}\circ{\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f,f^!A\circ \bar A_2}}$. \[rema:feel-good\]Combined with \[coro:reasy\], the last two propositions tell that, for a morphism $f:\bar {Y}\to {Y}$ in ${{\mathcal S}}_{X}$, it is not important to know where a lax pull-back ${\operatorname{Pull}_{\bar A,f}}$ or a lax push-forward A}}$ lands, long we keep track of classes in $\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}(?)/2$. Different choices can always be “realigned". Relative alignments and module structure {#se:mock} ============================================ Now that we have stable understanding of alignments, introduce a relative version of notion, a line on base to intervene. \[defi:X-aligned\]Let {X}$ be a scheme over ${X}$. We say that two line bundles $L_1$ and $L_2$ over ${Y}$ *(quadratically) ${X}$-aligned* \operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({Y})/2)$. This to existence a line bundle ${X}$ and an alignment $\pi_{Y}^*K\otimes L_1{\leadsto}L_2$ \[def
@{-->}[rr]^-{\displaystyle{{A}{}^{{\circlearroWleft}}}}
&& \operaTornaMe{W}^*_z({Y},L_2)\,.
}$$

by coroLlarY \[coro:desc\] for $\baR a=\bar a_2\circ\bar A_1{^{-1}}$, there exists $A:L_1{\LeadsTo}l_2$ Such THaT $f^!A\ciRc\bar A_1\sIMeQ
\BAr A_2$. by prOpoSiTIoN \[prop:Gen-Func\], ${{A}{}^{{\ciRclearrowlEft}}}\CiRc{\operatornaME{PUsh}_{f,\bar A_1}}={\opEraTorname{Push}_{f,F^!A\cIrc \bar
a_1}}={\oPerATornaMe{PUsh}_{f,\bAr A_2}}$.

\[remA:Feel-goOd\]CombineD wITh CoroLLary \[corO:REaSy\], thE last two propositiONs TEll us that, for a mOrphisM $f:\BAr {y}\TO {Y}$ iN ${{\maThcal S}}_{X}$, it iS nOt so iMPortant TO kNOW WheRE a lax pull-back ${\OperatornamE{pulL}_{\bar A,f}}$ Or A laX Push-foRward ${\OpERatOrname{Push}_{f,\Bar A}}$ Exactly laNds, as lONg as we kEEp track Of clasSes In $\oPeraTOrNaMe{\mAtHRm{PIC}}_{X}(?)/2$. difFEreNt choiceS cAn AlwayS be “rEALIGned".

relAtivE aligNments and lax mOduLe stRUctUre {#se:Mock}
============================================

NOw thAt We havE a stabLe undErStanding of alignMentS, we introdUce A rElaTiVe verSIon of tHis NotIon, alloWing a liNE buNdLE ON tHe base ${X}$ to intervene.

\[DeFI:x-aLigned\]LeT $\pi_{Y}:{Y}\tO {x}$ bE a SCheme oveR ${X}$. we sAy thAT Two liNe buNDlEs $L_1$ and $L_2$ oVer ${Y}$ arE *(QuAdRaticalLy) ${x}$-alignEd* If $[L_1]=[l_2]\in\OperaTOrnaMe{\mathRm{Pic}}_{X}({Y})=\oPeratORname{\mathrm{cokER}}(\pi_{Y}^*:\operatornAMe{\MAThRM{Pic}}({x})\to
\OperatornamE{\matHRm{PiC}}({Y})/2)$. ThIS aMouNTs to tHe exiStENcE Of a line bundle $K$ over ${X}$ AnD an aliGnmenT $\pi_{Y}^*K\otimes L_1{\lEadsto}L_2$ as iN dEFinition \[Def
@{-->}[rr]^-{\displaystyle {{A}{}^{{\ circl ear row le ft}} }}
& & \operatornam e {W}^ *_Z({Y},L_2)\,.
}$$

B y Cor ol l ary\ [c oro:d esc\] f o r$ \ bar  A =\ bar  A _ 2\ circ\ bar  A_1{^{ -1}}$, the reex ists $A:L_1{ \ le adsto}L_2$  su ch that $f^! A\c irc\ba rA_1 \ simeq 
\b ar A_ 2$. By Propos ition \[p ro p :gen-f u nc\], $ { { A} {}^{ {\circlearrowleft } }} \ circ{\operator name{P us h }_ { f ,\b arA_1}}={\op er atorn a me{Push } _{ f , f ^!A \ circ \bar
A_1 }}={\operat o rna me{Pus h} _{f , \bar A _2}}$ .\[r ema:feel-go od\] Combinedwith C o rollary \[coro: reasy\ ],the  las t  t wo  pr op o sit i on s t e llus that,  f or  a mo rphi s m $ f:\b ar{Y}\ to {Y }$ in ${{\mat hca l S} } _{X }$, i t isnotso  impo rtantto kn ow  where a lax pu ll-b ack ${\op era to rna me {Pull } _{\bar  A, f}} $ or alax pus h -fo rw a r d  $ {\operatorname{Pus h} _ { f, \bar A}} $ exac t ly  l a nds, aslo ngas w e keeptrac k  o f classe s in $ \ op er atornam e{ \mathr m{ Pic }}_ {X}(? ) /2$.  Diffe rent cho icesc an always be “ r ealigned".

R e la t i ve alig nme nts and lax  mod u le s truc t ur e { # se:mo ck}
= == = == = =================== == ====== ===== =====

Now th at we have a stable u nder s ta n ding of alignm ents,  we introd u ce a rel ative  version  of thisn o tion, al low ing  alin e bu ndle on the b a s e ${ X} $ to in ter vene.
\[d efi :X- ali gn ed\]Let $ \pi_{Y}: {Y }\ to  { X}$  be a scheme o ve r $ {X }$.  We s a y that  twoline  b un d les  $L_1$a nd $ L_2$  o ve r ${ Y}$  a re *( quad r ati cally)${X}$-ali gne d * if  $ [L _1]=[L_ 2]\in\operato rn ame{\mathr m{ Pic }}_{X} ( { Y})=\ope ratorname{\mathrm{coker } }(\pi_{ Y}^ *:\op erat orname{\m ath rm{Pic }}( { X})\to 
\oper atorn am e{\ m a thrm{ P i c} }({ Y} )/2)$. Thi s amo untsto  the  existe nce of a line bund l e $ K$ over ${X}$  an d an a li gnm e nt $\p i_ { Y}^ * K \otimes L_1{\le adsto}L_2$  a s  i n Definiti o n \ [d ef
@{-->}[rr]^-{\displaystyle{{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}}
&& \operatorname{W}^*_Z({Y},L_2)\,.
}$$

By_Corollary \[coro:desc\] for_$\bar A=\bar A_2\circ\bar A_1{^{-1}}$,_there exists_$A:L_1{\leadsto}L_2$_such that_$f^!A\circ\bar_A_1\simeq
\bar A_2$. By_Proposition \[prop:gen-func\], ${{A}{}^{{\circlearrowleft}}}\circ{\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f,f^!A\circ_\bar
A_1}}={\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar A_2}}$.

\[rema:feel-good\]Combined with Corollary \[coro:reasy\],_the last two_propositions_tell us that, for a morphism $f:\bar {Y}\to {Y}$ in ${{\mathcal S}}_{X}$, it is not_so_important to_know_where_a lax pull-back ${\operatorname{Pull}_{\bar A,f}}$_or a lax push-forward ${\operatorname{Push}_{f,\bar_A}}$ exactly_lands, as long as we keep track of_classes_in $\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}(?)/2$. Different_choices can always be “realigned".

Relative alignments and lax module_structure {#se:mock}
============================================

Now that we have a_stable understanding of_alignments,_we_introduce a relative version_of this notion, allowing a line_bundle on the base ${X}$ to intervene.

\[defi:X-aligned\]Let_$\pi_{Y}:{Y}\to {X}$ be a scheme over ${X}$. We_say that two line bundles $L_1$_and $L_2$ over ${Y}$ are *(quadratically)_${X}$-aligned* if_$[L_1]=[L_2]\in\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}_{X}({Y})=\operatorname{\mathrm{coker}}(\pi_{Y}^*:\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({X})\to
\operatorname{\mathrm{Pic}}({Y})/2)$. This amounts to the_existence of a_line bundle_$K$ over ${X}$ and_an alignment $\pi_{Y}^*K\otimes L_1{\leadsto}L_2$ as in_Definition \[def