Audit: QRS - 17-DMAG for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 10/09/2026 02:57 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	84
Failed	0
N/A	9
Pass Rate	100.00%

• Total = Passed + Failed + N/A
• Pass Rate = Passed / (Passed + Failed) × 100
• N/A items are excluded from the pass rate calculation

---

1. General Rules

#	Description	Result	Comments
1.1	Every claim, magnitude, label, recommendation, and statement in the QRS is literally supported by content in the source ER.	🟢	Spot-checked every populated span against the ER: at-a-glance against the Conclusion (ER 452-454) plus Practical Considerations (ER 392); action cells against Therapeutic Protocol (ER 351-353); time cells against ER 389; benefit/risk tiers against the ER tier headings; all 12 monitoring rows and the cadence against the ER table (ER 412-425) and ER 410; gates against Key Interactions & Contraindications (ER 314-334).
1.2	Where the ER uses cautious phrasing (“not formally studied”, “None documented in human trials to date”, “theoretical concern”, “data are limited”), the QRS uses the same phrasing.	🟢	“conflicted median lifespan extension in male mice” keeps the ER’s ⚠️ Conflicted flag (ER 166); “No measured human onset” mirrors ER 389; “No established numeric target” / “No established target” reproduced verbatim (ER 423-424).
1.3	The QRS never strengthens an ER claim (e.g., “not formally studied” → “not required”) or softens one (e.g., “do not use during pregnancy” → “use with caution during pregnancy”).	🟢	Absolute items stay absolute: QT-prolonging drugs (“Absolute contraindication”, ER 317) and full-dose anticoagulants (“Contraindicated in trial protocols”, ER 320) sit in Contraindications; caution-level items stay in Key Interactions.
1.4	The QRS does not relabel an ER fact under a different decision category. A “Benefit-Modifying Factor” from ER section is not surfaced as a “Caution”; a “Risk-Modifying Factor” is not surfaced as a “Side Effect”; etc.	🟢	No content from Benefit-Modifying Factors (ER 201-207) or Risk-Modifying Factors (ER 303-309) appears in the gates or the risk tiers; risk tiers draw only on Potential Risks & Side Effects headings.
1.5	PubMed IDs, study citations, expert names, clinical trial identifiers (NCT*), and brand names appear in the QRS only if they appear in the source ER for the same fact.	🟢	No PMIDs, no NCT identifiers, no author names. “Institute of Cancer Research” (line 457) is attached to the same fact at ER 352; “17-AAG”, “geldanamycin” and “Trastuzumab” all appear in the ER for the same facts (ER 333, 318).
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	The only attribution present, the Institute of Cancer Research programme, is the ER’s own (ER 352).

2. Focus, Tone & Audience

#	Description	Result	Comments
2.1	The QRS follows the tone of the ER, which is determined by the ER’s own language, phrasing, and framing.	🟢	Same restrained, uncontrolled-evidence framing; the ER’s “small, uncontrolled and unforgiving” reading is carried as “The human record is small, with no comparison groups”.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Thresholds, doses and monitoring targets are given as data; no alarmist or promotional register.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is stated as what trials did and measured, not as instructions to a patient.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative directed at a person; the monitoring cadence and targets are reported as the ER’s protocol tempo (ER 410) rather than as a prescription.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	The one use of “Recommended dose” (line 457) reports the trial programme’s recommended dose verbatim from ER 352; it is not the QRS recommending.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronoun occurs anywhere in the document body.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	The lede is fully plain; the technical terms that remain (biomarker names, tier headings) are ER-verbatim labels required by 4.2/13.3 and are not avoidable jargon.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Every tier is reduced to a semicolon-separated list of ER headings; gate items are single clauses; monitoring cells are one line each.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	No direct address; all statements are third-person or impersonal.
2.10	The target audience is health- and longevity-oriented adults who are risk-aware, proactive, and actively seeking to optimize health or apply the intervention under review.	🟢	Framing assumes a reader evaluating a longevity claim: the lede names the rodent basis and the narrow dose window as the decision-relevant facts.
2.11	The target audience is willing to employ lifestyle and behavioral changes as well as follow protocols that may be inconvenient, costly, or require effort.	🟢	The sheet presents intravenous schedules, a 12-marker panel and pre-dose/48-hour monitoring without hedging about burden.
2.12	The document is NOT written for the general population, who are unwilling to employ lifestyle and behavioral changes or follow protocols that may be inconvenient, costly, or require effort.	🟢	Content depth (body-surface-area dosing, QT ceilings, HSP72 fold-change) is pitched well above general-population material.
2.13	Framing, takeaways, and risk/benefit weighting throughout the document reflect this audience, including where an intervention’s signal for the average person differs from its signal for this audience.	🟢	The audience-specific gate is made explicit: “Anyone not enrolled in a supervised clinical trial” heads the Contraindications, and “No established protocol outside trials” is one of the three protocol cells.
2.14	The document’s own voice frames usage in longevity terms, not “anti-aging” (e.g., “anti-aging clinics”, “anti-aging community”, “anti-aging medicine”). Proper names that contain “anti-aging” (e.g., “American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine”) are quoted verbatim.	🟢	“Longevity interest” and “ageing effect” are used; “anti-aging” does not occur.
2.15	The document’s own voice uses formal clinical and scientific terminology, not colloquial or consumer-grade language (e.g., “oral medication” not “pill(s)”; “oral” / “administered orally” not “taken by mouth” / “given by mouth”; “injection” not “shot”; “adverse event” not “bad reaction”). This holds on EVERY surface, including the QRS lede — the stricter plain-language bar (see 2.7) does not license lay phrasing for route of administration. Direct quotes from sources are exempt.	🟢	Route of administration is given as “administered by intravenous infusion” in the lede and “intravenous infusion” / “1–2 hour infusions” in the protocol cells; no colloquial substitute anywhere.

3. Template Integrity

#	Description	Result	Comments
3.1	The following labels and headings on the QRS are fixed and not modified: Card and section headings: “Protocol”, “Time to effect”, “Benefits”, “Risk & Side Effects”, “Monitoring”, “Qualitative Assessment”; Gate headings: “Contraindications”, “Key Interactions”; Tier labels: “High”, “Medium”, “Low”, “Speculative”; Table column headers in Monitoring: “Marker”, “Target”, “Why”	🟢	A line-by-line diff against [qrs_template] shows no change to any heading, gate head, tier label or column header; the only differences fall inside data-qrs-var spans and the metadata block.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 30 named template spans are present; the three repeating template spans are instantiated as marker_1..12_name/target/why and qualitative_item_1..6. No placeholder text remains.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	The three non-variable spans website="evidence_review", website="audit" and website="full_review" are present and unchanged; CSS, structure and footer disclaimer are byte-identical to the template.

4. Formatting

#	Description	Result	Comments
4.1	When the source ER section is empty, the QRS uses the ER’s own empty-state phrasing verbatim. Typical phrasings are “None documented in human trials to date” and “Not formally studied”	N/A	No source ER section that feeds a QRS variable is empty. The unpopulated High/Medium benefit tiers are governed by 12.5, which explicitly forbids empty-state phrasing there.
4.2	Where the ER presents a bulleted item as “Label: content”, the QRS uses the ER’s bold label verbatim as the cell or row label.	🟢	All three action labels are ER bold labels verbatim: “Weekly intravenous schedule”, “Twice-weekly intravenous schedule”, “No established protocol outside trials” (ER 351-353). All 12 marker names are the ER Biomarker column verbatim (ER 414-425).
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	No label is abbreviated; the three time-to-effect labels are lifted from the wording of the ER’s single “Time to effect” bullet (“Tumour responses”, “Target engagement”, “senolytic or ageing effect”, ER 389).
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	A codepoint scan returns no character above U+2100; the ER’s 🟩/🟥/🟨/⚠️ markers were all dropped, and tiering is carried by the CSS palette and bold tier labels.
4.5	The QRS is designed to render on one A4 page. Any section that has more content in the ER than fits the per-section budget is condensed by the LLM, not extended onto a second page.	🟢	Every section is condensed rather than transcribed: benefit and risk tiers are reduced to ER headings only, all Magnitude: paragraphs are dropped, gate items are stripped to single clauses, and monitoring cells drop the ER’s entire Context/Notes column. No section carries ER prose onto a second page.

---

5. Metadata

#	Description	Result	Comments
5.1	The metadata is placed inside a single HTML comment that is the first element after “<!doctype html>” and before any other comment, head, or body content.	🟢	Lines 2-14 hold a single comment immediately after <!doctype html> on line 1, ahead of the template comment on line 16.
5.2	Inside that HTML comment the YAML block is delimited by a line “—” opening and a line “—” closing. Text before the opening “—” is permitted but is not parsed as YAML.	🟢	Opening --- on line 3, closing --- on line 13; the preceding title text sits on line 2.
5.3	The metadata is not visible in any rendered view of the QRS and is not surfaced by any other element on the sheet.	🟢	It is inside an HTML comment and no element on the sheet repeats any of its values.
5.4	All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading or trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless the value contains a colon, bracket, or leading special character that requires YAML quoting.	🟢	Only duration: "00:04" is quoted, and it contains a colon; the remaining eight values are unquoted and untrimmed of nothing.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: 17_dmag_2026-0910-0011_Opus_ER.md.
5.6	Version of the QRS.md file used to create the document is stated as “qrs_prompt_version: [Version of QRS.md]”	🟢	Line 5: qrs_prompt_version: 26.7.02, matching the version badge of [qrs_prompt].
5.7	Creation date and time of the document is stated as “qrs_creation_date: [YYYY-MMDD-HHMM]” (e.g., 2026-0501-1430)	🟢	Line 6: qrs_creation_date: 2026-0910-0251.
5.8	The nickname of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_nickname: [qrs_creator_ai_nickname]”	🟢	Line 7: qrs_creator_ai_nickname: Opus.
5.9	The nickname of the AI is just a single word model name without version, etc. (e.g., Opus, Sonnet, Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT)	🟢	“Opus” — single word, no version.
5.10	The full name of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_fullname: [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]”	🟢	Line 8: qrs_creator_ai_fullname: Opus 5.
5.11	The full name of the AI consists of the [qrs_creator_ai_nickname] and the model version number and no additional qualifier (e.g., Opus 4.6, Sonnet 3.2, Grok 4.5, Gemini 3.1, ChatGPT 5.4)	🟢	“Opus 5” — nickname plus version only, no context-window or tier qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	Line 9: qrs_filename: 17_dmag_2026-0910-0011_Opus_QRS.html, matching the file on disk.
5.13	All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading or trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless the value contains a colon, bracket, or leading special character that requires YAML quoting.	🟢	Re-verified: no stray whitespace on any of the nine keys, and the only quoted value requires quoting.

6. Page Title & Header

#	Description	Result	Comments
6.1	[page_title] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter followed by “ - Quick Reference Sheet” (e.g., “Intervention - Quick Reference Sheet”). The [canonical_topic] is HTML-entity-encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	Line 22: 17-DMAG for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet, against canonical_topic: 17-DMAG for Health & Longevity (ER 8).
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	Line 417: 17-DMAG for Health & Longevity.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: 09/10/2026, correctly derived from qrs_creation_date: 2026-0910-0251.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	Line 425: Opus 5, matching the frontmatter value.
6.5	No additional header content appears: no badge, version stamp, AKA / alternate names line, source-AI attribution, audit date, or QRS variant marker.	🟢	The header holds only the title and the template subline; the ER’s “Also known as” line (ER 31) was not carried over.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Every clause tracks the Conclusion (ER 452-454), with the execution-relevant route fact added from ER 392.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	58 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Protein-folding helper (ER 452); intravenous-only in trials (ER 392); two rodent findings (ER 452); small, uncontrolled record (ER 454); durable shrinkage, fatal renal event, cardiac, ocular, neuropathic and fatigue harms (ER 454); narrow dose window (ER 454, 391).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronym other than the compound name itself; “protein-folding helper”, “worn-out cells”-level phrasing, “kidney failure”, “heart injury”, “eye damage”, “nerve injury” are all lay terms.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial name, year, cohort size or statistic appears.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers at all beyond the compound name; the ER’s 7% lifespan figure and response durations are omitted.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All 11 items trace to ER 314-334, drawing on both the interaction bullets flagged as contraindications and the “Populations who should avoid 17-DMAG” list.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All nine “Populations who should avoid” entries (ER 326-334) plus the two interaction bullets the ER labels contraindications — QT-prolonging drugs (ER 317) and full-dose anticoagulants (ER 320).
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eleven <li> elements inside the stop_items span (lines 565-595).
8.4	Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, no elaborations, no mechanistic rationale, no attributions, no citations, no study details. No content after an em-dash, en-dash, or hyphen-dash (e.g., “— dose reduction required”, “— reduced efficacy”) — these trailing clauses are stripped. Just the key fact.	🟢	Trailing clauses stripped throughout: “since no approved source, dose or monitoring standard exists” and “— teratogenic and abortifacient potential was assumed in every protocol” (ER 326-327) are gone; no item contains a dash-led clause.
8.5	Parenthetical qualifiers from the ER bullet — time windows, severity classes, threshold values, clinical staging — ARE preserved as part of the item, kept as concise as possible (shortened or trimmed where needed to fit the one-page budget, but never dropped entirely).	🟢	All decision-bearing qualifiers survive: below 40%, NYHA class III or IV, within the past year, 450/470 ms, 2.5× and 1.5× ULN, Child-Pugh Class B or C, 50 mL/min, 130 mmol/L, 1,500/mm³, 100,000/mm³, 8 g/dL. Only lay glosses (“the inherited form”, “a severity score for chronic liver disease”, “multi-drug HIV treatment”) were dropped.
8.6	When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>” for severity ordering) that depends on an explanatory phrase to interpret, normalize the items to a plain comma-separated list rather than carrying through the bare symbol.	N/A	The ER’s Key Interactions & Contraindications section uses no ranking notation inside parentheses.
8.7	The section is left empty ONLY IF the ER’s Key Interactions & Contraindications section identifies no population, condition, or scenario for which the intervention should be avoided, deferred, or used only under specialist supervision.	🟢	The ER names nine such populations plus two absolute drug contraindications, and the section is correspondingly populated.
8.8	If the section is left empty, an HTML comment inside the [stop_items] span records the ER basis for the absence, naming or quoting the ER text relied on. E.g.	N/A	The section is not empty.

9. Key Interactions

#	Description	Result	Comments
9.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All seven items trace to the interaction bullets at ER 314-322.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	Seven of the ER’s nine interaction bullets appear; the two the ER labels as contraindications (QT-prolonging drugs, full-dose anticoagulants) are correctly excluded here and placed in the Contraindications gate.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Seven <li> elements inside the caution_items span (lines 603-620).
9.4	Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, no elaborations, no mechanistic rationale, no attributions, no citations, no study details. No content after an em-dash, en-dash, or hyphen-dash (e.g., “— dose reduction required”, “— reduced efficacy”) — these trailing clauses are stripped. Just the key fact.	🟢	Every consequence clause is stripped, including “raises 17-DMAG exposure and risk of renal, hepatic and cardiac dose-limiting toxicity” (ER 314) and “Caution with mandatory cardiac monitoring” plus the linked PMID (ER 318); no citation or dash-led clause remains.
9.5	Parenthetical qualifiers from the ER bullet — example drug lists, time windows, severity classes, threshold values, clinical staging — ARE preserved as part of the item, kept as concise as possible (shortened or trimmed where needed to fit the one-page budget, but never dropped entirely).	🟢	All four ER parenthetical drug lists are carried verbatim, and the supplement bullet, which has no parenthetical in the ER, is given one built from the ER’s own named examples (ER 321).
9.6	When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>” for severity ordering) that depends on an explanatory phrase to interpret, normalize the items to a plain comma-separated list rather than carrying through the bare symbol.	N/A	The ER’s interaction bullets use no ranking notation inside parentheses.
9.7	The section is left empty ONLY IF the ER’s Key Interactions & Contraindications section identifies no interaction, additive effect, or exposure that changes how the intervention is used.	🟢	The ER identifies nine interactions and the section is populated with the seven caution-level ones.
9.8	If the section is left empty, an HTML comment inside the [caution_items] span records the ER basis for the absence, naming or quoting the ER text relied on. E.g.	N/A	The section is not empty.

10. Protocol

#	Description	Result	Comments
10.1	The section is derived from the ER Protocol section	🟢	All three cells derive from Therapeutic Protocol bullets at ER 351-353.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	The two dosing schedules that carry every published parameter, plus the absence of any protocol outside trials — the ER’s own lead bullet and the single most decision-relevant fact for this audience.
10.3	If less that three distinct actionable implementation aspects are mentioned in the ER the unused sets are left empty and made invisible, not filled with placeholder text or empty-state phrasing.	N/A	The ER supplies well more than three actionable aspects, and all three sets are populated.
10.4	All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section.	🟢	All nine cells carry substantive content: 80 mg/m² weekly with the 106 mg/m² fatal-dose context (ER 352), 21 mg/m²/day maximum tolerated with the 24 mg/m² leukaemia schedule (ER 353), and the no-approved-indication statement (ER 351).

11. Time to Effect

#	Description	Result	Comments
11.1	The three sets of [time] items cover the three most important time-to-effect aspects from the ER	🟢	Exactly the three aspects the ER’s “Time to effect” bullet names: tumour response, target engagement, and any senolytic or ageing effect (ER 389).
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Tumour response first (the only benefit graded Low, i.e. the highest tier reached, ER 152-158), then confirmed target engagement (Speculative, ER 170-172), then the senolytic/ageing effect with no measured human onset.
11.3	If less that three distinct time-to-effect aspects are mentioned in the ER the unused sets are left empty and made invisible, not filled with placeholder text or empty-state phrasing.	N/A	The ER names three distinct aspects and all three sets are populated.
11.4	All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER.	🟢	“Weeks to months”, “Within 24 hours” with the 96-hour duration, and “No measured human onset” — all three values and subs trace to ER 389.
11.5	If the ER does not provide any information on time to effect, the section is removed completely from the Protocol Panel	N/A	The ER provides an explicit “Time to effect” bullet (ER 389), so the section is correctly retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	The Low entry and all nine Speculative entries are the ER’s own Expected Benefits sub-headings (ER 154, 162-196).
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present (lines 541-555).
12.3	Items are as concise as possible. No explanations, no elaborations, no effect sizes, no qualifiers, no attributions, no citations, no study details, no mechanistic explanations, etc. Just the key fact.	🟢	Headings only; the ER’s Magnitude: line (124-week complete response, 3 of 17 remissions, ER 158) and every mechanistic sentence and PMID link are omitted.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses occur in either benefit tier; the ER’s glosses such as “(a senescence marker)” and “(an autoimmune disease attacking the body’s own tissues)” are gone.
12.5	If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing.	🟢	benefits_high and benefits_medium carry style="display: none" with no empty-state text, matching ER 146 and ER 150 where no benefit reaches either tier.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All 14 entries are the ER’s own risk sub-headings (ER 216-298).
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated (lines 632-656).
13.3	Items are as concise as possible. No explanations, no elaborations, no effect sizes, no qualifiers, no attributions, no citations, no study details, no mechanistic explanations, etc. Just the key fact.	🟢	Headings only; every Magnitude: line (the 4% treatment-related death, the 8.5-fold exposure range) and every mechanistic paragraph is dropped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses in any tier; the ER’s glosses “(inflammation of the cornea)”, “(a fall in the bone marrow’s output of blood cells)” and “(nerve damage in the hands and feet…)” are all removed.
13.5	If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing.	N/A	All four risk tiers carry items in the ER, so no span needed hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Rows and cadence derive from Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success (ER 408-425).
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 12 ER table rows are present in ER order, with Optimal Functional Range mapped to Target and Why Measure It? to Why, both verbatim.
14.3	[monitoring_cadence] is populated with the monitoring cadence/frequency derived from the ER Monitoring section. It is not left with placeholder text or empty.	🟢	Lines 854-858 condense ER 410: pre-dose and 48-hour chemistry/count/ECG, ejection fraction every 8–12 weeks, ophthalmological examination every 4 weeks then at 3 and 6 months.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All six entries come from the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the laboratory panel” list (ER 429-434).
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	Six of six, in ER order, with the ER’s trailing rationale clauses (“since ocular symptoms preceded objective findings”, “since fatigue was the practical dose ceiling”, “which no trial measured formally…”) correctly stripped.

Issues 10/09/2026 02:57

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.