Let $\varphi(x)$ and $j(x)$ be two field configurations. Let $\Gamma[\varphi]$ be a functional of the field $\varphi$ defined by:
$$ \Gamma[\varphi] := \inf_j \ F[\varphi, j] = F[\varphi, j_\varphi] \tag{1}$$
where $F[\varphi, j]$ is a functional of both $\varphi$ and $j$, and for any fixed $\varphi$, the unique field configuration that extremizes $F$ is $j_\varphi$, which is to say,
$$ \frac{\delta}{\delta j} F[\varphi,j] \Big\rvert_{j=j_\varphi} = 0 \,. \tag{2}$$
Now suppose that the structure of $F$ allows the following identity to hold:
$$ \frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi} \Gamma[\varphi] + j_\varphi = 0 \,.\tag{3}$$
Please keep in mind that the above equality is an identity, but it can be easily promoted to the status of an equation as follows:
$$ \frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi} \Gamma[\varphi] + j = 0 \,,\tag{4}$$
whose solution is, of course, $$j=j_\varphi\tag{5}$$ for any given $\varphi$. Alternatively, however, we can fix $j$ and ask for the $$\varphi =: \varphi_j\tag{6}$$ that solves it.
We then have an equivalent identity:
$$ \frac{\delta}{\delta\varphi} \Gamma[\varphi]\Big|_{\varphi=\varphi_j} + j = 0 \,.\tag{7} $$
In such a scenario, would it be true to say that
$$ \Gamma[\varphi_j] = F[\varphi_j, j]\tag{8} $$
which allows us to write a functional of $j$ instead of $\varphi$? If yes, can you please provide a justification for the above claim?
Note that it is equivalent to claiming that $$ j_{\varphi_j} = j \,.\tag{9}$$
What does that even mean?