diff --git a/docs/constructions.tex b/docs/constructions.tex
index 0a205d8450d472dd288c9f6e4f9ddde69b5c071a..60315f69d038f7f5db84c823626ee4c583b2e97f 100644
--- a/docs/constructions.tex
+++ b/docs/constructions.tex
@@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
-\section{OFE and COFE constructions}
+\section{OFE and COFE Constructions}
 
-\subsection{Trivial pointwise lifting}
+\subsection{Trivial Pointwise Lifting}
 
 The (C)OFE structure on many types can be easily obtained by pointwise lifting of the structure of the components.
 This is what we do for option $\maybe\cofe$, product $(M_i)_{i \in I}$ (with $I$ some finite index set), sum $\cofe + \cofe'$ and finite partial functions $K \fpfn \monoid$ (with $K$ infinite countable).
 
-\subsection{Next (type-level later)}
+\subsection{Next (Type-Level Later)}
 
 Given a OFE $\cofe$, we define $\latert\cofe$ as follows (using a datatype-like notation to define the type):
 \begin{align*}
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ connective.
 
 
 \clearpage
-\section{RA and CMRA constructions}
+\section{RA and CMRA Constructions}
 
 \subsection{Product}
 \label{sec:prodm}
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ We can easily extend this to a full CMRA by defining a suitable core, namely
 \end{align*}
 Notice that this core is total, as the result always lies in $\maybe\monoid$ (rather than in $\maybe{\mathord{\maybe\monoid}}$).
 
-\subsection{Finite partial function}
+\subsection{Finite Partial Functions}
 \label{sec:fpfnm}
 
 Given some infinite countable $K$ and some CMRA $\monoid$, the set of finite partial functions $K \fpfn \monoid$ is equipped with a CMRA structure by lifting everything pointwise.
@@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ We then obtain
   {\authfull \melt_1 , \authfrag \meltB_1 \mupd \authfull \melt_2 , \authfrag \meltB_2}
 \end{mathpar}
 
-\subsection{STS with tokens}
+\subsection{STS with Tokens}
 \label{sec:sts-cmra}
 
 Given a state-transition system~(STS, \ie a directed graph) $(\STSS, {\stsstep} \subseteq \STSS \times \STSS)$, a set of tokens $\STST$, and a labeling $\STSL: \STSS \ra \wp(\STST)$ of \emph{protocol-owned} tokens for each state, we construct an RA modeling an authoritative current state and permitting transitions given a \emph{bound} on the current state and a set of \emph{locally-owned} tokens.
diff --git a/docs/derived.tex b/docs/derived.tex
index 13474276b789c17bccc6e7215c56fbd459908fb7..631455a88b29d7d380196b1a2ed78dfd3b023e1a 100644
--- a/docs/derived.tex
+++ b/docs/derived.tex
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
-\section{Derived constructions}
+\section{Derived Constructions}
 
-\subsection{Non-atomic (``thread-local'') invariants}
+\subsection{Non-Atomic (``Thread-Local'') Invariants}
 
 Sometimes it is necessary to maintain invariants that we need to open non-atomically.
 Clearly, for this mechanism to be sound we need something that prevents us from opening the same invariant twice, something like the masks that avoid reentrancy on the ``normal'', atomic invariants.
diff --git a/docs/ghost-state.tex b/docs/ghost-state.tex
index bd10d54efa60000c9290d79789776440300a521a..103dcfb3d7ce4575ed1630aac902c227bbe2aa16 100644
--- a/docs/ghost-state.tex
+++ b/docs/ghost-state.tex
@@ -3,7 +3,7 @@
 In this section we discuss some additional constructions that we define within and on top of the base logic.
 These are not ``extensions'' in the sense that they change the proof power of the logic, they just form useful derived principles.
 
-\subsection{Derived rules about base connectives}
+\subsection{Derived Rules about Base Connectives}
 We collect here some important and frequently used derived proof rules.
 \begin{mathparpagebreakable}
   \infer{}
@@ -42,7 +42,7 @@ We collect here some important and frequently used derived proof rules.
 
 Noteworthy here is the fact that $\prop \proves \later\prop$ can be derived from Löb induction, and $\TRUE \proves \plainly\TRUE$ can be derived via $\plainly$ commuting with universal quantification ranging over the empty type $0$.
 
-\subsection{Persistent assertions}
+\subsection{Persistent Assertions}
 We call an assertion $\prop$ \emph{persistent} if $\prop \proves \always\prop$.
 These are assertions that ``don't own anything'', so we can (and will) treat them like ``normal'' intuitionistic assertions.
 
@@ -52,7 +52,7 @@ Persistence is preserved by conjunction, disjunction, separating conjunction as
 
 
 
-\subsection{Timeless assertions and except-0}
+\subsection{Timeless Assertions and Except-0}
 
 One of the troubles of working in a step-indexed logic is the ``later'' modality $\later$.
 It turns out that we can somewhat mitigate this trouble by working below the following \emph{except-0} modality:
diff --git a/docs/language.tex b/docs/language.tex
index f58120942900f2bc5a6f6bed1d42e03c82928804..19833fd75ab919d5747eb9affc1bf918ac807f36 100644
--- a/docs/language.tex
+++ b/docs/language.tex
@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ A \emph{language} $\Lang$ consists of a set \Expr{} of \emph{expressions} (metav
   \end{enumerate}
 \end{defn}
 
-\subsection{Concurrent language}
+\subsection{Concurrent Language}
 
 For any language $\Lang$, we define the corresponding thread-pool semantics.
 
diff --git a/docs/model.tex b/docs/model.tex
index 1d9e2c74057bb0e86259e1cd510a529f52ae5298..e855482dc9d1dfd4def067f03ebf961a3c220fcb 100644
--- a/docs/model.tex
+++ b/docs/model.tex
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-\section{Model and semantics}
+\section{Model and Semantics}
 \label{sec:model}
 
 The semantics closely follows the ideas laid out in~\cite{catlogic}.
diff --git a/docs/paradoxes.tex b/docs/paradoxes.tex
index 099d1a9e7efdb9c8385c5f7ad573e994d9a4e2bf..99cdb170a15ff513308e6407e74bd6b8470c51fd 100644
--- a/docs/paradoxes.tex
+++ b/docs/paradoxes.tex
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
-\section{Logical paradoxes}
+\section{Logical Paradoxes}
 \newcommand{\starttoken}{\textsc{s}}
 \newcommand{\finishtoken}{\textsc{f}}
 
 In this section we provide proofs of some logical inconsistencies that arise when slight changes are made to the Iris logic.
 
-\subsection{Saved propositions without a later}
+\subsection{Saved Propositions without a Later}
 \label{sec:saved-prop-no-later}
 
 As a preparation for the proof about invariants in \Sref{app:section:invariants-without-a-later}, we show that omitting the later modality from a variant of \emph{saved propositions} leads to a contradiction.
@@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ With this lemma in hand, the proof of \thmref{thm:counterexample-1} is simple.
   Together with the rule \ruleref{sprop-alloc} we thus derive $\upd \FALSE$.
 \end{proof}
 
-\subsection{Invariants without a later}
+\subsection{Invariants without a Later}
 \label{app:section:invariants-without-a-later}
 
 Now we come to the main paradox: if we remove the $\later$ from \ruleref{inv-open}, the logic becomes inconsistent.