 Solution

With the same compatible pair $u,v$, the valuative criterion for properness isEquivalently, one can replace finite type by being a quasi-compact morphism and locally of finite type. Necessity follows from the definition of a proper morphism and the existence and uniqueness criteria in (i) and (ii). Conversely, finite type supplies the compactness needed in (i), while being a quasi-separated morphism supplies the compactness of the diagonal morphism needed in (ii). Thus the extension condition gives both universal closedness and separatedness, and these together with finite type give a proper morphism. These hypotheses are part of the criteria, even though the question is phrased for unrestricted morphisms of schemes.^[ref]