Consistency: Deep research ↔ review ↔ PN annotation consistent and appropriately hedged. LMAN1L is a testis/prostate-enriched LMAN1 paralog with an L-type lectin domain; the review keeps essentially all annotations KEEP_AS_NON_CORE because there is NO direct functional evidence (Falcon returned no gene-specific experimental literature). It is correctly treated as a predicted lectin (not a glycosidase). No contradictions.
PN story / NEW pressure: No NEW pressure — there is barely enough evidence to support the existing predicted-lectin framing, let alone a new term. Conclude: nothing to add; uncharacterized paralog.
Mapping strategy:Group→GO:0006487 (new_to_goa) is doubly inappropriate here: (1) wrong branch — predicted glycan-reader, not an N-glycosylation installer (same over-reach as LMAN1/LMAN2); (2) the gene is uncharacterized (PE 2), so projecting any new biosynthesis assertion onto it is unwarranted. PN node correctly leaves "Lectin chaperone" unmapped. The projected GO term should not propagate to this paralog.
Evidence alignment: PN dossier is mapping-only. The review's sole experimental reference is an ECM-proteomics co-isolate (PMID:28675934), explicitly flagged as a transmembrane contaminant; everything else is IBA/IEA/UniProt-by-similarity. No bibliographic conflict; the only divergence is the inappropriate group-level biosynthesis projection.
Verdict: Review correctly conservative for an uncharacterized paralog; PN node correct to leave it unmapped. Inherited group→GO:0006487 projection is an over-reach (wrong branch + unsupported on a PE 2 gene). Recommended edits: [MAP] Suppress GO:0006487 (protein N-linked glycosylation) propagation to LMAN1L — predicted lectin/cargo receptor, no N-glycosylation activity, and transcript-level-only evidence; do not introduce a new biosynthesis annotation on an uncharacterized paralog.