There is a genuine qualification: the first printed inequality is valid as a useful general assertion for , but is false for arbitrary . Also the displayed likelihood ratio presupposes . We first prove the intended bound and then give a counterexample to the unrestricted quantifier.
For any estimator , set . By the triangle inequality, on , while on . Hence
Let with . On , . Therefore
The last step is Markov inequality. Taking the supremum over the model and then the infimum over estimators proves the intended metric two-point risk bound. At the right side is zero. For a negative right side is also harmless, but a positive right side need not be a lower bound.
Here is an explicit counterexample with positive probability density functions and . Let , , and take the model consisting of
Use the L2 norm metric, for which , and take for every . The majority-half decision selects if at least two observations lie in . Each error probability is , so its maximum normalized risk function is . This is also the likelihood-ratio test, giving . At the proposed right side is , contradicting the risk of this explicit estimator. Thus the intended range restriction cannot be omitted.
For the second request use the intended L2 norm metric . The PDF defines its square, not the square itself as a metric. Put
Both probability density functions belong to the model, and . The two-point choice may depend on , because the lower bound is applied separately at each sample size. Under , the product likelihood ratio satisfies
This is the product chi-squared divergence. By Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, . With , the proved metric two-point risk bound has normalized right side greater than . Consequently
The proof works for every despite the introductory . Measurability of the functions defining the probability density functions is understood. This establishes the requested lower bound; it does not assert a matching upper bound over this unrestricted class.