6 In the following, we will not consider this possibility, but rather restrict for simplicity to a constant coupling (as it is standard in the literature), so, from the 4D side, we will have g$_{i}$ ≡ g$_{c}$ . The trickiest part of the generalization, however, is to interpret the cutting of the link. To understand this properly, we can start by noticing that the cut link prevents any direct contact between the two sides of the moose; the fields on the left only couple to those on the right through the field U . In this sense, the moose is split by the cut in two separate pieces, linked by U . Due to the reflection symmetry (see Eq. (5)), the two pieces are identical to each other, at a site-by-site level, from every point of view: field content, coupling constants g$_{i}$ , link couplings f$_{i}$ . The right way to look at this set up is to consider the sites connected by the reflection symmetry as describing the same point along the extra dimension : for example, we can look at the fields A i and A 2 $^{N}$−i not as values of the same 5D SU (2) gauge field at two different points along the extra dimension, but rather components of a single SU (2) ⊗ SU (2) gauge field at the same extra-dimensional location. We can do this, because by Eq. (7), the warp factor - and thus the 5D metric - at a given site, only depends on the value of the link coupling constant f$_{i}$ , which is equal at points identified by the reflection symmetry, that describe the same point y$_{i}$ on the 5 th dimension. The situation is depicted graphically in Fig. 2: it is equivalent to flip one of the pieces of the moose and superposing it to the other one. In this way, we do not obtain a 5D SU (2) gauge theory, but a SU (2)$_{L}$ ⊗ SU (2)$_{R}$ one, with the left part of the moose describing the SU (2)$_{L}$ gauge theory and the right part SU (2)$_{R}$ and the coupling constants of the two sectors of the gauge group identified by a discrete symmetry. The field U no longer appears as nonlocal, but rather as confined at one end of the extra-dimensional segment. The last point to consider is the presence of different gauge fields - the ones corresponding to SU (2)$_{L}$ ⊗ U (1)$_{Y}$ - at the two ends of the moose, which are identified with one of the endpoints of the 5D interval (which for definiteness we will take to be y = πR ). This can be accounted for by considering localized kinetic terms at y = πR for the 5D gauge fields; the fields ˜ W and ˜ B can then be simply identified with the values of the SU (2)$_{L}$ and of the third component of the SU (2)$_{R}$ 5D gauge fields respectively. Notice that the “flipped” GD-BESS moose has N + 1 sites: N for the SU (2)$_{L}$ ⊗ SU (2)$_{R}$ gauge fields and the last one for the fields corresponding to SU (2)$_{L}$ ⊗ U (1)$_{Y}$ . By convention, we will map this last site to the y = πR end of the extra dimension; the other endpoint, y = 0, will correspond to the gauge