PN placement: ALP …|Sealing of autophagophore membrane|ESCRT-I complex component ; PN-node mapping: leaf mapped/ok_for_propagation GO:0000813 ESCRT I complex; group mapped GO:0000045 autophagosome assembly (both flagged new_to_goa).
Consistency: MAJOR divergence. The PN annotation asserts UMAD1 is "Component of the ESCRT-I complex, involved in autophagosome closure" and projects GO:0000813 + GO:0000045. The review YAML and notes conclude the opposite: UMAD1 is poorly characterized, UniProt has no FUNCTION comment and zero GO/PAN-GO annotations, and the only GOA evidence is generic IPI protein binding (HuRI; GABARAPL1, TH isoform 3). The review explicitly declines any ESCRT-I/autophagy function.
PN story / NEW pressure: The PN asserts a role (ESCRT-I membership + autophagosome assembly) not in GO and not supported by the review. PMID:32424346 lists UMAD1 only as a possible UMA-domain fourth subunit and notes some theoretical complexes may not form. Verdict: PN over-reaches — neither GO:0000813 nor GO:0000045 is defensible for UMAD1 on current evidence (would be a speculative NEW from name/domain only).
Mapping strategy: This gene should NOT drive the ALP leaf/group projection. UMAD1 is the weakest member of the ESCRT-I-component leaf (cf. UBAP1, VPS28); propagating GO:0000813/GO:0000045 to it on family-name grounds is exactly the kind of paralog/domain over-annotation to avoid.
Evidence alignment: PN cites PMID:32424346 (helical ESCRT-I scaffold). Review cites the same PMID plus PMID:32296183 (HuRI) and UniProt — and reads PMID:32424346 as explicitly NOT establishing a UMAD1 complex. Same papers, opposite conclusions.
Verdict: CONTRADICTION — PN projects ESCRT-I + autophagosome-assembly membership that the review rejects as unsupported. Recommend the PN leaf not project GO terms onto UMAD1 (mark gene-level no_mapping/UNDECIDED) pending direct evidence.