PM2 is met at moderate strength: the variant is absent from gnomAD v2.1 and v4.1 population databases.¹ BP4 is met at supporting benign strength: REVEL (0.297), BayesDel (-0.03757), and SpliceAI (max delta 0.02) all predict a neutral or non-damaging effect.² PVS1 is not applicable because this is a missense substitution (p.Tyr89Cys), not a null variant per ClinGen PVS1 recommendations (PMC6185798).³ PP3 is not met: the same in silico evidence that supports BP4 fails to support a pathogenic computational prediction.⁴ The majority of criteria (PS1-PS4, PM1, PM6, PP1-PP2, PP4, BS2-BS4, BP2, BP5-BP6) cannot be assessed due to a complete absence of variant-specific data in ClinVar, gnomAD, the literature, and functional databases.⁵ Under the generic ACMG/AMP 2015 combination rules (PMID:25741868), one moderate pathogenic criterion (PM2) and one supporting benign criterion (BP4) do not meet the threshold for likely pathogenic (requires ≥3 moderate or 1 strong + ≥1 moderate) or likely benign (requires ≥2 supporting benign or 1 strong benign + 1 supporting benign). The variant is classified as a Variant of Uncertain Significance (VUS).⁶