Somewhat similar related question: Can a corollary follow a conjecture?
One writes of a corollary to a theorem, a corollary to a lemma, a corollary to a "proposition", a corollary to a corollary, a corollary to a conjecture (but might that one be confusing sometimes?), perhaps a corollary to an axiom (I don't know that I've ever seen that one, but I don't have any qualms about it), maybe a corollary to a definition, and in some odd contexts a corollary to a statement that is known to be false.
But today I found myself tempted to label a statement a "corollary," when the thing it would be a corollary to is none of the above, but rather a proof. I.e. the proof proves not only the theorem that precedes it, but also the "corollary" that follows it. It's a very terse proof because it just says: put together the several lemmas that precede the theorem, so there!
Can it be, at least in some cases, proper usage to call something a corollary to a proof? Or is there some other word for this situation that is known to everyone except me?