I am trying to understand this paper/set of notes. I have already seen the following related question: Does the stationary phase approximation equal the tree-level term? but had some trouble following the accepted answer as I am still new to this topic.
They consider a path integral of the form $$\int[d\phi]e^{iS[\phi]}$$ and use the stationary phase method/saddle point method. I am not very familiar with this method, but from what I understand one takes a field $\phi_c$ such that it is an extrema of the classical action: $\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi}\Big|_{\phi_c} = 0$ if no sources are present or $\frac{\delta S}{\delta \phi}\Big|_{\phi_c} = J$ in the presence of a source $J$. The stationary phase method/saddle point method gives a way to approximate the path integral by using the fact that it is a Gaussian integral. The final approximation involves a functional determinant.
One can rewrite any field by centering it around the $\phi_c$ found above, i.e. $$\phi = \phi_c + \delta \phi. \tag{1}$$
The paper then says that by applying the decomposition (1) to the path integral one gets $$Z = e^{iS[\phi_c]} \int [d\delta \phi]\exp\Big(\frac i2\delta\phi \frac{\delta^2 S}{\delta\phi\delta\phi}\Big|_{\phi_c}\delta\phi\Big). \tag{2}$$
My questions are:
Is my understanding of the stationary phase method/saddle point method right or is there more to it?
How did they obtain (2)? It seems more was done than just substituting the decomposition (1) into the path integral.
How is the integrand in (2) the variation of an amplitude?
How does (2) "recover $\hbar$ below the classical action" in any sense if $\hbar$ is not even present?
I apologize for including multiple questions in one post. If the Phys.SE community prefer I can split this into multiple questions.