Restriction Enzyme Cut Site Finder

Inspectable records

Ledger state

The current ledger marks this instrument verified clean within the source-bound verification corpus.

Area

Biology, Medicine & Pharmacology (educational estimates only — every panel labeled not-medical-advice)

Tranche

tranche-7

Evidence ID

t7-095

Ledger rows

1

No ledger note is attached.

Review findings

The recognition-site matching concept is valid, and the honest-label statement appropriately identifies the table as a non-exhaustive reference subset. The instrument needs explicit position indexing, cleavage offsets, strand handling, topology, invalid-input behavior, and unsupported-enzyme behavior before its outputs are unambiguous.

Formula and scope findings

• Pattern matching against recognition motifs is the standard algorithm, provided IUPAC symbols are interpreted correctly (for example, N means A, C, G, or T).
• The specification does not define enzyme-specific cleavage offsets, which are required to compute cut positions and fragment lengths; recognition-site matching alone is insufficient.
• The specification does not state whether matching includes the reverse-complement strand. This matters for non-palindromic recognition sites and enzymes with asymmetric cleavage behavior.
• The specification does not define whether sequences are linear or circular, nor the position convention (1-based versus 0-based and whether a reported position is the recognition-site start or the cleavage coordinate).

Unit assumptions

• DNA positions are assumed to be 1-based nucleotide coordinates.
• A reported recognition-site position is the 1-based start coordinate of the matched motif.
• A reported cut coordinate is the number of nucleotides to the left of the cleavage point in a linear sequence.
• Fragment lengths are measured in nucleotides.
• All test vectors assume a linear, double-stranded DNA sequence and the listed enzyme cut convention.

Boundary hardening

BREAK_CLAIMED · SELF_FLAGGED

The specification does not define coordinate indexing, cleavage-boundary reporting, empty-input behavior, fragment-list behavior for zero cuts, or enzyme cleavage offsets. A caller could therefore receive incompatible but superficially plausible outputs. The extreme-length vector also exposes possible runtime or memory failure even though the expected arithmetic result is well-defined.

Errata and corrections

No applied erratum is attached to this unique-name record.

Inspectable example

4 review vectors are recorded. One source-bound sample is shown below.

{
  "inputs": {
    "dna_sequence": "TTTGAATTCCGA",
    "enzyme": "EcoRI"
  },
  "expected_outputs": {
    "recognition_site_positions": [
      4
    ],
    "cut_positions": [
      4
    ],
    "fragment_lengths": [
      4,
      8
    ]
  },
  "reference_data": {
    "enzyme": "EcoRI",
    "recognition_site": "GAATTC",
    "cut_notation": "G^AATTC",
    "iupac_interpretation": "No ambiguity codes; exact matching",
    "source_convention": "REBASE/common textbook restriction-enzyme convention; widely tabulated standard value"
  },
  "working": "Sequence length = 12 nucleotides. The substring at positions 4-9 is GAATTC, so the recognition-site start is 4. EcoRI cuts G^AATTC, after nucleotide 4, giving cut coordinate 4. Fragment 1 length = 4 - 0 = 4. Fragment 2 length = 12 - 4 = 8. Therefore fragments = [4, 8]."
}

Related workflows

No source-defined multi-instrument workflow membership is recorded.

Sources and evidence

These pointers bind the page to evidence. They do not grant authority or collapse verification into deployment.

• VERIFIED_LEDGER.json · VERIFIED_CLEAN
• evidence-tranche7/tranche7-results.json
• BOUNDARY_HAZARD_CATALOG.json