The operad that co-represents enrichment (Q2214759)

\textit{Enriched category theory} has been an integral part of the development of modern category theory, examples include \textit{abelian categories}, which are enriched over abelian groups, \textit{dg-categories}, which are enriched over chain complexes, and \textit{\(2\)-categories}, which are enriched over categories. Hence, there are now many excellent sources developing categorical concepts (such as (co)limits, adjunctions, Yoneda lemma and Kan extensions) in the enriched setting, most famously [\textit{G. M. Kelly}, Repr. Theory Appl. Categ. 2005, No. 10, 1--136 (2005; Zbl 1086.18001)]. Classical category theory has been successfully generalized to a theory of \textit{\((\infty,1)\)-categories} or \textit{\(\infty\)-categories}, which is a weak form of category theory with inherent connections to \textit{homotopy theory} and part of a general trend towards derived and homotopical mathematics. In particular one derived analogue of abelian and dg-categories are \textit{stable \(\infty\)-categories} and an analogue of \(2\)-categories are \textit{\((\infty,2)\)-categories}. We would hence expect a systematic study of \textit{enriched \(\infty\)-categories} (such as an \textit{enriched Yoneda lemma}) with the hope of similarly realizing stable \(\infty\)-categories as \textit{spectrally enriched} or \((\infty,1)\)-categories as \textit{\((\infty,1)\)-category enriched}. One first step towards enriched \(\infty\)-categories over monoidal \(\infty\)-categories via \textit{left module \(\infty\)-operads} was taken by \textit{ [J. Lurie} [``Higher Algebra'', \url{http://www.math.harvard.edu/~lurie/papers/HA.pdf}], however, did not pursue a detailed study of enriched \(\infty\)-categories. This happened first in the work of Gepner and Haugseng, who introduced enriched \(\infty\)-categories via \textit{non-symmetric \(\infty\)-operads}, generalizing the approach by Lurie, and then use that to prove that all stable \(\infty\)-categories are spectrally enriched or \((\infty,n)\)-categories are \((\infty,n-1)\)-category enriched [\textit{D. Gepner} and \textit{R. Haugseng}, Adv. Math. 279, 575--716 (2015; Zbl 1342.18009)]. Moreover, it is well-suited to study \textit{presentability}, however, it misses a study of the Yoneda lemma or Kan extensions of enriched \(\infty\)-categories. Around the same time, Hinich developed an alternative approach to enriched \(\infty\)-categories via \textit{enriched precategories}, which in particular comes with a \textit{Yoneda lemma}, however, has not been used to study presentable \(\infty\)-categories or spectrally enriched \(\infty\)-categories [\textit{V. Hinich}, Adv. Math. 367, Article ID 107129, 119 p. (2020; Zbl 1454.18003)]. It was expected (and in fact claimed in [\textit{V. Hinich}, Adv. Math. 367, Article ID 107129, 119 p. (2020; Zbl 1454.18003)]) that these two approaches to enriched \(\infty\)-categories are equivalent, which would then allow us to translate the results from one setting to another and in particular combine the strength of the two approaches by Gepner-Haugseng and Hinich. This is the result of this paper. In fact the author proves a stronger result (Theorem \(1.1\)) by showing that for a given monoidal \(\infty\)-category \(\mathscr{V}\) there is a \textit{unique} equivalence between the Gepner-Haugseng and the Hinich approach to \(\mathscr{V}\)-enriched \(\infty\)-categories, along the lines of similar uniqueness results for equivalences of models of \((\infty,1)\)-categories [\textit{B. Toën}, \(K\)-Theory 34, No. 3, 233--263 (2005; Zbl 1083.18003)] and \((\infty,n)\)-categories [\textit{C. Barwick} and \textit{C. Schommer-Pries}, ``On the unicity of the homotopy theory of higher categories'', Preprint, \url{arXiv:1112.0040}]. The proof of Theorem \(1.1\) proceeds by giving an explicit description of the \textit{corepresenting planar operads} of both approaches (Section \(2\)), which then reduces the proof to constructing an adjunction of \(\infty\)-categories. This is then (via the key technical result in Proposition \(3.3\) and its implication Corollary \(3.4\)) reduced to constructing an adjunction of \(1\)-categories, which is the content of Section \(4\). The proof is then finished by proving the uniqueness of this equivalence in Section \(5\).