ROUTER audit

Verdict

Status: keep
Confidence: high
Short verdict: Keep. The ubiquitin-code framing is valid if caveated: linkage type biases fate but readers, architecture, and substrate context decide output.

Node definition: Ubiquitin conjugation and chain topology directing proteins to proteasomal degradation, signaling, trafficking, or autophagy.
Incoming edges:
- SWITCH -> ROUTER: phospho-degron / → E3 ligase
- TETHER -> ROUTER: STUbLs: / SUMO→Ub [context/dashed]
- LICENSE -> ROUTER: NEDD8 licenses CRLs / → Ub routing [emphasized]
Outgoing edges:
- ROUTER -> DESTROY: K48→26S / K63→p62/LC3
- ROUTER -> KEYS: K63/M1 Ub / → NF-κB signaling [context/dashed]
- ROUTER -> MATURE: Ub-chaperone / proteostasis [context/dashed]

What is strongly supported: E1/E2/E3 cascades attach ubiquitin; K48/K11 often support proteasomal degradation, K63/M1 often support signaling/scaffolding, and mixed/branched chains add complexity.
What is context-dependent: Chain length, branching, substrate site, E3/DUB context, and reader proteins shape outcome.
What is weak, controversial, or assay-biased: “K48 = proteasome, K63 = autophagy/signaling” is a useful shorthand but too deterministic.
What may be duplicate biology under another name: Overlaps with LICENSE, TETHER/STUbL, DESTROY.

Missing edges: Add ROUTER -> INSPECTOR? RQC uses ubiquitination, but current INSPECTOR -> DESTROY covers output.
Excess edges: ROUTER -> MATURE “Ub-chaperone proteostasis” is broad but acceptable as dashed.
Candidate splits: No split.
Candidate merges: No merge.
Candidate renames: UBIQUITIN-CODE.

Concrete graph change, if any: Keep; add chain-complexity caveat.
Concrete technical-notes/blog wording change, if any: Mirror the graph recommendation in the glossary and relation catalogue, and explicitly mark the confidence/caveat where the claim is context-dependent or assay-sensitive.