Minimum evidence for comparing mosaic findings across tissues

Cross-tissue absence is uninterpretable unless each negative compartment had an explicitly validated detection limit for the variant class and expected allele fraction.

The embryo study names trophectoderm and inner cell mass analyses, while the neurocutaneous and TP53 reports invoke postzygotic mosaicism or clonal evolution. Together, they motivate a compact reporting standard: tissue and cell composition, sequencing depth, variant-specific limit of detection, orthogonal confirmation, and allele fraction with uncertainty for every tested compartment. Without those elements, apparent restriction may reflect sampling or sensitivity; in hematopoietic tissue, clonal expansion is an additional alternative to stable organism-wide mosaic burden.

Were positive and negative compartments assayed under comparable thresholds, and what longitudinal or lineage evidence distinguishes an early postzygotic event from later clonal selection?