 Solution

Use the leading-order parton model: scatter incoherently from an approximately on-shell collinear quark carrying nucleon momentum fraction $x$, neglect quark and lepton masses, use an unpolarized target, and neglect nuclear binding and higher-twist corrections. The condition $Q^2\gg m_p^2$ suppresses target-mass effects, while $Q^2\ll M_W^2$ permits the local Fermi interaction instead of the full W propagator. CKM-weighted accessible final flavours are approximated by their leading light-quark sums. The struck-quark centre-of-mass energy is $\hat{s}\simeq xs$, with $s=(k+p{)}^2\simeq 2m_N{E}_{\nu }$.

A neutrino scatters through $\nu d\to {\mu }^{-}u$ or $\nu s\to {\mu }^{-}c$, and through the corresponding crossed antiquark channels such as $\nu \bar{u}\to {\mu }^{-}\bar{d}$. The chiral charged current makes the massless quark contribution independent of $y$ and the antiquark contribution proportional to $(1-y{)}^2$. The scattering probability is weighted by the parton distribution functions; the explicit factor $x$ comes from $\hat{s}=xs$. In the usual convention $q(x)dx$ is a number probability density, while $xq(x)$ is a momentum density. Approximate Bjorken scaling leaves mainly $x$ dependence; QCD evolution adds a logarithmic $Q^2$ dependence.

The printed proton-density formula is not an isoscalar formula in the standard PDF convention. For a proton, neglecting incoming charm and taking accessible CKM sums as unity, the conventional leading-order result isFor an isoscalar target per nucleon, average proton and neutron and use charge symmetry of nucleon parton distributions: $d_n=u_p$, ${\bar{u}}_n={\bar{d}}_p$, $s_n=s_p$. This givesThe standard normalization follows equivalently by inserting $F_2^{\nu p}=2x(d+s+\bar{u})$ and $x{F}_3^{\nu p}=2x(d+s-\bar{u})$ into the charged-current structure-function formula.^[ref]

A concrete discrepancy remains even with a simple valence model: take $u_p=2h(x)$, $d_p=h(x)$ and all sea densities zero. The correctly averaged isoscalar bracket is $3h(x)$, while the printed bracket is only $h(x)$ with the same prefactor. Thus the intended helicity and $x$ dependence can be explained, but the literal printed isoscalar claim cannot be derived. If the symbols were instead defined as momentum densities, the extra explicit $x$ would also need removal.