Audit: QRS - 7,8-Dihydroxyflavone for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 17/09/2026 00:55 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	85
Failed	0
N/A	8
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.	🟢	Every cell traced to ER: dose range and timing to Therapeutic Protocol, gates to Key Interactions & Contraindications, tiers to Expected Benefits / Potential Risks & Side Effects, table to Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success.
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.	🟢	“No dose-finding study supports any of these figures”, “Unknown in humans”, “Animal work only” and “No established target on this compound” are carried through verbatim.
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 contraindications stay in the stop gate; caution/monitor items stay in the interactions gate; no grade or severity shifted.
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 Benefit-Modifying Factors or Risk-Modifying Factors bullet is surfaced as a gate or tier item; each QRS section draws only from its mapped ER section.
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, citations, author names, NCT identifiers or brand names anywhere in the QRS.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions of any kind in the QRS body.

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.	🟢	Matches the ER’s deflationary, evidence-first register throughout.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Objective and data-driven; the monitoring panel and defined windows give the reader actionable structure rather than a bare refusal.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Statements are descriptive (“Capsules are sold at 25 mg”), not prescriptive.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperatives or advice verbs; the footer disclaimer is the template’s.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “recommend”, “should”, “advise” or equivalent in the document’s own voice.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the sheet.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms appear only where they are the ER’s own section labels or biomarker names; the lede is fully plain-language.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Gate items and tier lists are reduced to bare noun phrases; no sentence exceeds one clause plus qualifier.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — no direct address.
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.	🟢	Content assumes a reader weighing self-administration: dose range, timing, screening thresholds, biomarker panel.
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.	🟢	An eight-marker laboratory panel with baseline, 4-week, 12-week and 6-month checks assumes exactly that willingness.
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.	🟢	No simplified general-population framing; functional ranges are used rather than conventional laboratory cut-offs.
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 lede states plainly that every claim sits at the lowest evidence grade, which is the weighting this audience needs.
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” appears in the title and header; “anti-aging” appears nowhere.
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.	🟢	“Capsules”, “dosing”, “daily dosing”, “plasma pyridoxal 5’-phosphate” — no colloquial route-of-administration or adverse-event wording.

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”	🟢	All headings, gate labels, tier labels and table column headers are byte-identical to the template.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 38 template spans present; marker_#_* expanded to markers 1–8 and qualitative_item_# to items 1–6.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	A structural diff against the template shows changes confined to variable regions and the frontmatter; CSS, markup and the website="..." spans are untouched.

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 ER section rendered by the QRS is empty; the empty benefit and risk tiers are governed by the more specific rules 12.5 and 13.5, and the ER supplies no empty-state phrasing for the Low tier.
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.	🟢	“Consumer dose range”, “Best time of day”, “Single versus split dosing” and all ten interaction/contraindication labels match the ER bold labels verbatim.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Time-to-effect labels use the ER’s own wording (“memory and metabolic changes”, “mood-related endpoints”, “shortest informative window”); marker names match the ER biomarker column.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	A Unicode scan of the file returns no emoji; the ER’s tier emoji were correctly dropped.
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 already reduced to the minimum compatible with 14.2 and 15.2: tiers are single semicolon-joined lines, gate items are bare noun phrases, and marker rationales are one clause each.

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, immediately after <!doctype html> on line 1 and before 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.
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.	🟢	Enclosed in an HTML comment; no element reproduces the YAML block.
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: "00:03" is quoted, correctly, because the value contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	er_filename: 78_dihydroxyflavone_2026-0917-0008_Opus_ER.md (line 4).
5.6	Version of the QRS.md file used to create the document is stated as “qrs_prompt_version: [Version of QRS.md]”	🟢	qrs_prompt_version: 26.9.11, matching the QRS.md version badge.
5.7	Creation date and time of the document is stated as “qrs_creation_date: [YYYY-MMDD-HHMM]” (e.g., 2026-0501-1430)	🟢	qrs_creation_date: 2026-0917-0047.
5.8	The nickname of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_nickname: [qrs_creator_ai_nickname]”	🟢	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)	🟢	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]”	🟢	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, no qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	qrs_filename: 78_dihydroxyflavone_2026-0917-0008_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: all nine values trimmed and consistently formatted.

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 &)	🟢	“7,8-Dihydroxyflavone for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet”.
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	“7,8-Dihydroxyflavone for Health & Longevity”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	2026-0917-0047 → “09/17/2026”.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	“Opus 5”.
6.5	No additional header content appears: no badge, version stamp, AKA / alternate names line, source-AI attribution, audit date, or QRS variant marker.	🟢	Header carries only the title and the template subline; the ER’s “Also known as” line is correctly 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	🟢	Condenses the ER Conclusion to the decision-relevant core: what it is, what has been observed, in what species, and the resulting evidence grade.
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.	🟢	Each of the five clauses maps to a distinct sentence in the ER Conclusion (lines 428–430).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	BDNF and TrkB are rendered as “a growth protein the brain uses to keep nerve cells alive”; no acronyms or clinical-register terms.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial, author or year named.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers of any kind.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	Drawn from the two absolute-contraindication bullets and the “Populations who should avoid” list (ER lines 249–277).
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All nine ER stop conditions present; no caution/monitor item misplaced here.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Nine <li> elements inside the span.
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.	🟢	All ER rationale (“direct pharmacological opposition…”, “risking disease progression”) stripped; no dashes carrying trailing clauses.
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).	🟢	“1% or more nuclear staining”, “one or more seizures in the previous 12 months”, “more than 50 mg daily”, “Child-Pugh Class B or C”, “below 30 mL/min/1.73 m²” all retained; only definitional glosses 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 uses no ranking notation inside parentheses in this section.
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 does identify such populations and the section is correctly 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	🟢	Drawn from the caution- and monitor-graded bullets at ER lines 253–267.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All eight non-absolute interactions present; the two absolute contraindications correctly excluded.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eight <li> elements inside the span.
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.	🟢	Consequence and mitigation clauses stripped; the ER’s “monitor only — additive rather than adverse” em-dash clause correctly removed from the exercise/sauna item.
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).	🟢	Every ER example-drug list preserved verbatim, including the two parentheses in the vitamin B6 item.
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 uses no ranking notation inside parentheses in this section.
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 does identify such interactions and the section is correctly populated.
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 trace to the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets (lines 301, 309, 313).
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Dose, timing and single-versus-split are the only three bullets in the ER protocol that a reader can act on; the remainder are framing, pharmacokinetics or eligibility.
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 mentions at least three distinct actionable aspects; all three sets are used.
10.4	All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section.	🟢	All nine fields populated; each sub adds the ER’s own caveat rather than repeating the value.

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	🟢	Memory/metabolic (2–4 weeks), mood (days) and the 12-week informative window are the three time figures the ER gives (line 356).
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Memory and metabolic change first, matching the ER’s benefit ordering, then mood, then the overall assessment window.
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 mentions three distinct time-to-effect aspects; all three sets are used.
11.4	All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER.	🟢	All nine fields populated; each sub carries the ER’s “unknown in humans” qualifier or the ER’s own definition of the window.
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 does provide time-to-effect information (Practical Considerations, line 356).

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	All eight items map to ER Expected Benefits sub-headings (lines 143–173).
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and correctly used.
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.	🟢	Reduced to eight bare noun phrases; species, study details and the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” marker all dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in the benefits list.
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, benefits_medium and benefits_low carry style="display: none" with no empty-state text.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All six items map to ER Potential Risks & Side Effects sub-headings (lines 209–231).
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and correctly used.
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.	🟢	Reduced to six bare noun phrases; the ER’s dose figures and “basis is mechanistic only” clauses are dropped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in the risks list.
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.	🟢	risks_high, risks_medium and risks_low carry style="display: none" with no empty-state text.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Rows reproduce the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success table (lines 386–395).
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All eight ER biomarkers present, with targets and rationales carried over 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.	🟢	Baseline, 12 weeks, 6 months, then 6–12 months, plus the 4-week B6/glucose check — matching ER line 384.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Taken from the ER’s “Qualitative markers tracked alongside the laboratory panel” list (lines 399–404).
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six ER qualitative markers present, in the ER’s order.

Issues 17/09/2026 00:55

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.