Pointwise almost-everywhere convergence and domination by an L1 function justify exchanging limit and integral. I will separate the object being defined from the consequence being claimed.
Definitions first
Lebesgue integration treats a measurable function \(f:X\to[-\infty,\infty]\) through level sets and simple approximations. The space \(L^1(\mu)\) consists of integrable functions modulo equality almost everywhere.
The definition determines which expressions are legal; only then does the identity become meaningful. An equality in \(\mathcal A\) may change ambient meaning, so I keep \(\mathsf D\) separate from \(\mathsf C\).
A small case in full
An explicit case prevents the notation from becoming ceremonial. Every subscript and superscript in the display contributes to the value.
The reusable statement
The two-row display is also a debugging tool: if the conclusion changes when only notation changes, some hidden choice has entered the argument.
A nearby false statement
Every convergence theorem has a different hypothesis. Pointwise convergence alone does not permit an integral and a limit to change places.
The notation is dense, but it is doing honest work: every delimiter records scope and every index records dependence. Removing one should require a mathematical reason.