NULL: UCP1 gamma does not separate endotherm from ectotherm

UCP1 promoter γ does NOT separate the two strategies by value. The endotherm reads (1.3951, 1.4029, 1.4054, 1.4124, 1.4144, 1.4156, 1.4176, 1.4178, 1.4255, 1.4264, 1.4273, 1.4415) sit above the ectotherm reads (1.2206, 1.2644), but that gap tracks GC content, and the pig's UCP1 PSEUDOGENE reads 1.3951 -- squarely among the functional rodents. γ is blind to thermogenic function.

This null is the firewall made measurable. The endotherm/ectotherm γ difference is GC-driven (ectotherm promoter GC ~0.33-0.38 vs endotherm ~0.50-0.53), and a non-functional pseudogene reads in the functional envelope. The promoter read reports stiffness, never thermogenic capacity.

The reads

Endotherm UCP1 γ: 1.3951, 1.4029, 1.4054, 1.4124, 1.4144, 1.4156, 1.4176, 1.4178, 1.4255, 1.4264, 1.4273, 1.4415. Ectotherm UCP1 γ: 1.2206, 1.2644. The pig pseudogene reads 1.3951; the functional rodents read 1.4124, 1.4273. The pseudogene falls INSIDE the functional-rodent envelope: True.

Why the gap is not the criterion

The lower ectotherm reads are GC-confounded, and a gene that makes no functional furnace reads like one that does. If γ encoded thermogenic capacity, the pseudogene would stand out; it does not. This is exactly why Q1's criterion is gene PRESENCE and a defended attractor, not a γ value.

This is a feature

The framework treats such nulls as results. The same honesty appears in the DNA package's gene atlases: the read places a gene on a structural scale; it does not adjudicate the gene's physiological output.