The lemma goes like this (in author's notation, $\pi: V\to X$ is the projection map; if $f: Y\to X$, and $W$ is a vector bundle over $X$, then $f^* W$ is the pullback of $W$ over $Y$):
Let $X$ be a compact Hausdorff space, suppose that $V$ is a Hermitian vector bundle over $X$, and let $k$ be a natural number. Define $\epsilon: \bigwedge^k(\pi^* V)\to \bigwedge^{k+1}(\pi^*V)$ by setting $\epsilon(v, \omega)=(v, v\wedge \omega)$ for all $v\in V$ and $\omega\in \bigwedge^k(\pi^*V)$. For each element $v$ of $V$ that appears in a wedge product, let $\hat{v}$ indicate omission of $v$. Then $$ \epsilon^*(v, v_1\wedge...\wedge v_k)=(v, \sum_{j=1}^{k+1}(-1)^{j+1}\langle v_j, v_1\rangle v_1\wedge ...\wedge \hat{v}_j\wedge ...\wedge v_{k+1}) $$ for all simple wedges in $\bigwedge^k(V)_v$.
My questions:
What is $\bigwedge^k(V)_v$?
Following the author's notation, $\epsilon^*$ is supposed to be the pullback functor, and as such should map vector bundles over $\bigwedge^{k+1}(\pi^*V)$ to vector bundles over $\bigwedge^k(\pi^*V)$. But in the lemma it apparently maps from $\bigwedge^k(\pi^*V)$ as a space to $\bigwedge^k(\pi^*V)$ as a space? How do I make sense of this?
$\omega\in \bigwedge^k(\pi^*V)$ is a typo - it should be $\omega\in\bigwedge^k(V)$, right?
$\bigwedge^k(V)_v$ is the fiber of the vector bundle $\bigwedge^k(V)$ over $v$.
$\epsilon^*: \bigwedge^{k+1}(\pi^*V)\to \bigwedge^k(\pi^*V)$ denotes the adjoint operator of $\epsilon: \bigwedge^k(\pi^*V) \to \bigwedge^{k+1}(\pi^*V)$. As such, there was a typo in the definition of $\epsilon^*$ - it takes as input $(v, v_1\wedge...\wedge v_k\wedge v_{k+1})$.
That is indeed another typo in the formulation of the lemma. There were also 5 more typos in the proof of this lemma.