Consistency: Contradiction. PN classifies DNAJC11 as a J-domain HSP70 co-chaperone and projects GO:0030544 Hsp70 binding. The review and notes explicitly state the opposite: DNAJC11's role is structural (MIB/MICOS/SAM, cristae organization); "no demonstrated HSP70 ATPase stimulation" and "DNAJC11's MF is not well-defined as a co-chaperone." The review deliberately assigns NO molecular-function/Hsp70-binding term and frames the gene around GO:0140275 (MIB complex), GO:0042407 (cristae formation), GO:0007007. GOA contains no GO:0030544 or even GO:0031072.
PN story / NEW pressure: PN asserts an HSP70-cochaperone role that is NOT in GOA and NOT supported by literature. This is the classic over-broad J-domain holdase/cochaperone inference flagged in the task. There is no defensible NEW Hsp70-binding term here; the gene's verified biology (cristae/MIB) is already captured. The PN goa_status=more_specific_than_existing_goa is also factually wrong — GOA lacks the parent GO:0031072, so it could at best be new_to_goa, but the assertion itself is unsupported.
Mapping strategy:DNAJC11 should be treated as an exception to the J-domain-cochaperone type mapping (like the structural/non-canonical cases). Propagating GO:0030544 to DNAJC11 would assert an undemonstrated function. The node mapping is fine for genuine cochaperones but mis-includes DNAJC11.
Evidence alignment: PN row carries no titles; review anchors on PMID:25111180, 25997101, 26477565 (all verified, MIB/cristae). None supports Hsp70 binding. Full divergence from the PN cochaperone framing.
Verdict: PN over-reaches — DNAJC11 is a structural MIB/cristae protein, not a demonstrated HSP70 cochaperone. Recommended edits: [MAP] remove/exempt DNAJC11 from GO:0030544 propagation under the "J-domain containing HSP70 cochaperone" type; its propagating terms are GO:0140275 / GO:0042407.