Audit: QRS - Acetyl Tetrapeptide-2 for Skin Rejuvenation
Audit conducted on 21/09/2026 01:04 using AI4L / Opus 5
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. | 🟢 | Protocol, time-to-effect, gates, benefits, risks, monitoring and qualitative content all trace to ER Therapeutic Protocol, Practical Considerations, Key Interactions & Contraindications, Expected Benefits, Potential Risks & Side Effects and 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 established universal target” (marker_1_target) and “No numeric target” (marker_4_target) carry the ER’s hedging 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”). | 🟢 | The off-target marker “not central to skin rejuvenation” and the “(no caution required)” status flag are both carried through rather than dropped. |
| 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. | 🟢 | Contraindications come from the ER’s “Populations who should avoid” list; Key Interactions from the ER’s interaction bullets; no Benefit- or Risk-Modifying Factor is surfaced as a gate. |
| 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, NCT IDs, expert names or brand names appear anywhere in the QRS. |
| 1.6 | The QRS does not introduce new attributions. | 🟢 | “The manufacturer’s endpoints” and “the hair trial” are the ER’s own attributions. |
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. | 🟢 | Reserved, evidence-status-forward tone matching the ER’s Conclusion. |
| 2.2 | The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging | 🟢 | Instrument targets and cadence give the reader actionable measurement handles while the evidence limits stay explicit. |
| 2.3 | The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor | 🟢 | Statements are descriptive (“Morning pairs with sun protection”), not imperative. |
| 2.4 | The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice | 🟢 | No prescriptive verbs; gates state conditions, not instructions. |
| 2.5 | The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” | 🟢 | No “recommend”, “advise”, or “should” constructions in the QRS voice. |
| 2.6 | The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance | 🟢 | No second-person pronouns anywhere in the file. |
| 2.7 | The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon | 🟢 | Technical terms retained are the ER’s own and are load-bearing (re-epithelialization, telogen effluvium). |
| 2.8 | Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner | 🟢 | Benefits, risks and gate items are compressed to key facts; sub-lines are single clauses. |
| 2.9 | It DOES NOT address the reader directly | 🟢 | Confirmed by full-file scan for you/your/we/our. |
| 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. | 🟢 | Cutometer, TEWL and corneometer targets assume a proactive, self-measuring reader. |
| 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. | 🟢 | Twice-daily 56-day regimen, open patch testing and instrument monitoring are presented without hedging on effort. |
| 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. | 🟢 | Monitoring table is instrument-based rather than “look in the mirror”. |
| 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. | 🟢 | At-a-glance closes on “Inexpensive, low-risk, unresolved” — 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. | 🟢 | “anti-aging” does not occur; the QRS uses “firming and renewal” / “rejuvenation”. |
| 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 stated formally (“Cream or serum on clean facial skin”, “Direct periocular use”); no consumer-grade substitutes. |
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 fixed strings match the template byte-for-byte (lines 446, 491, 538, 565, 588, 605, 629, 633–635, 739). |
| 3.2 | All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. | 🟢 | Set comparison against the template returns no missing variable; marker_#_* and qualitative_item_# are correctly expanded to 1–6 and 1–5. |
| 3.3 | Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged | 🟢 | <span website="evidence_review">, <span website="audit"> and <span website="full_review"> are unchanged; a tag-level diff against the template shows no unauthorized structural edits. |
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 mapped into the QRS is empty; the empty benefit/risk tiers are governed by 12.5 and 13.5, which forbid empty-state phrasing. |
| 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. | 🟢 | “Standard regimen”, “Formulation requirements”, “Best time of day” are the ER’s bold labels verbatim (ER lines 295, 301, 303). |
| 4.3 | Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. | 🟢 | Protocol labels are verbatim; the time-to-effect labels are derived because the ER supplies a single bullet with no per-item bold labels, as 11.4 requires. |
| 4.4 | The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels. | 🟢 | No emoji in the file; the ER’s ⭕️ off-target marker was correctly dropped while its text was kept. |
| 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 to the template’s per-section budget: two benefit tiers, two risk tiers, five-item gates in a two-column grid, six monitoring rows, five qualitative items. |
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 the doctype. |
| 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 “—” at line 3, closing “—” at 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 metadata value is repeated in the header or body. |
| 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, and it contains a colon. |
| 5.5 | The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” | 🟢 | Line 4: er_filename: acetyl_tetrapeptide_2_skin_2026-0921-0002_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: 26.9.11, 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) | 🟢 | Line 6: qrs_creation_date: 2026-0921-0042. |
| 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, no qualifier. |
| 5.12 | The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” | 🟢 | Line 9 matches the file’s actual name 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 across all nine keys; no stray whitespace or unnecessary 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: “Acetyl Tetrapeptide-2 for Skin Rejuvenation - Quick Reference Sheet”; no characters require entity encoding. |
| 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 matches the ER’s canonical_topic exactly. |
| 6.3 | [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] | 🟢 | Line 421: 09/21/2026, from 2026-0921-0042. |
| 6.4 | [header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname] | 🟢 | Line 425: “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 is the template’s structure with only the two variables filled; the ER’s alternate_names line was 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 |
🟢 | Compresses all three Conclusion paragraphs and closes on the decision signal “Inexpensive, low-risk, unresolved”. |
| 7.2 | [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words | 🟢 | 59 words. |
| 7.3 | Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. | 🟢 | Each clause maps to ER Conclusion lines 415 and 419. |
| 7.4 | It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead | 🟢 | “thymus messenger”, “cultured skin cells”, “the company that sells the raw material” — no acronyms, no clinical-register words. |
| 7.5 | It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) | 🟢 | No trial named or dated. |
| 7.6 | It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results | 🟢 | No percentages, intervals or P values. |
8. Contraindications
| # | Description | Result | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 | The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section |
🟢 | All five items come from the ER’s “Populations who should avoid Acetyl Tetrapeptide-2” list (ER lines 269–273). |
| 8.2 | [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER | 🟢 | All five ER bullets are present, none added. |
| 8.3 | Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> | 🟢 | Five <li> elements at lines 568–583. |
| 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. | 🟢 | The ER’s trailing rationale “, where no exposure data exist” is stripped from the pregnancy item; no dash-trailing clauses remain. |
| 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). | 🟢 | “(absolute contraindication)”, “within 72 hours”, “before re-epithelialization”, “until the barrier has healed” and “not ophthalmologist-tested for the eye area” are all retained. |
| 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 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 names five 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 |
🟢 | All five items come from the ER’s interaction bullets (ER lines 255–263). |
| 9.2 | [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications | 🟢 | The ER’s sixth bullet (microneedling, ablative lasers, medium-depth peels) is correctly excluded because its substance is already a contraindication item. |
| 9.3 | Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> | 🟢 | Five <li> elements at lines 591–595. |
| 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 ER mechanism/consequence/mitigation clause is stripped; only the agent names plus the ER’s “no caution required” status flag remain. |
| 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). | 🟢 | “(tretinoin, adapalene, tazarotene)”, “(hydrocortisone, mometasone, clobetasol)” and “(glycolic, lactic, salicylic)” are all preserved. |
| 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 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 names six 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 ER Therapeutic Protocol lines 295, 301 and 303. |
| 10.2 | The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section |
🟢 | Standard regimen, formulation requirements and timing are the three bullets a user can actually act on; the remaining bullets are provenance, pharmacology or “no difference established”. |
| 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 more than three actionable aspects and 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 spans carry ER-derived content; none retains a placeholder. |
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 | 🟢 | The ER’s “Time to effect” bullet (line 350) contains exactly three facts and all three are carried. |
| 11.2 | The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit | 🟢 | Facial firmness (the central Low-tier benefit) first, hair shedding (the off-target Low-tier benefit) second, the interpretive floor third. |
| 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 | Three distinct aspects exist and 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 spans carry ER-derived content; “56 days”, “Weeks 4 to 8” and “8 weeks” are the ER’s own figures. |
| 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 time-to-effect information, so the section is correctly retained. |
12. Benefits
| # | Description | Result | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 12.1 | The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section |
🟢 | Both filled tiers reproduce the ER’s benefit sub-headings. |
| 12.2 | Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] | 🟢 | All four spans present at lines 540, 543, 546 and 552. |
| 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. | 🟢 | The ER’s Magnitude lines (25.2%, 16%, 0.13 cm, P values, 2.3-fold) are all dropped; only the sub-heading text survives. |
| 12.4 | Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. | 🟢 | No parentheses remain in either benefit tier. |
| 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. | 🟢 | The ER records no High or Medium benefit; both spans carry style="display: none" (lines 540, 543) with no empty-state text rendered. |
13. Risks
| # | Description | Result | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13.1 | The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section |
🟢 | Both filled tiers reproduce the ER’s risk sub-headings. |
| 13.2 | Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] | 🟢 | All four spans present at lines 607, 610, 613 and 619. |
| 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. | 🟢 | The ER’s 20.1% / 27.9% prevalence figures and the 15-study placebo-control detail are all dropped. |
| 13.4 | Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. | 🟢 | No parentheses remain in either risk tier. |
| 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. | 🟢 | The ER records no High or Medium risk; both spans carry style="display: none" (lines 607, 610). |
14. Monitoring
| # | Description | Result | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14.1 | The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section |
🟢 | Table rows match the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table (ER lines 380–387). |
| 14.2 | All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed |
🟢 | All six ER rows present: cutometer R2, TEWL, corneometer hydration, standardized photography, skin surface pH, patch test. |
| 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. |
🟢 | Line 731: “Week 4 for tolerance only, then weeks 8 and 12 for effect, then every 6 months if continued”, matching ER line 378. |
15. Qualitative Assessment
| # | Description | Result | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| 15.1 | The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section |
🟢 | All five items come from the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the instruments” list (ER lines 391–395). |
| 15.2 | All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed |
🟢 | All five ER qualitative markers present and verbatim; none added. |
Issues 21/09/2026 01:04
Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.
Issues 21/09/2026 00:57
- 1.3 — At-a-glance drops ER hedge: [at_a_glance] (line 435) states “The case rests on cultured skin cells and testing run by the company that sells the raw material”, but the ER
Conclusion(line 415) says the case “rests mainly” on those two sources; dropping “mainly” strengthens the claim into an exclusive one and writes out the single controlled human trial the ER goes on to describe.
Fixes 21/09/2026 00:57
- 1.3 — At-a-glance hedge restored: [at_a_glance] now reads “The case rests mainly on cultured skin cells and testing run by the company that sells the raw material”, restoring the ER
Conclusionscope hedge “mainly” that had been dropped. The section remains within the 60-word budget at 59 words.
Issues 21/09/2026 00:49
- 9.4 — Trailing explanation in caution item: The fifth key-interaction item (QRS lines 594–597) reads “Oral collagen peptides, hyaluronic acid, vitamin C (no caution required; benefit attribution becomes impossible)”; the consequence clause “benefit attribution becomes impossible” is an elaboration that item 9.4 requires to be stripped.
Fixes 21/09/2026 00:49
- 9.4 — Trailing explanation in caution item: Stripped the consequence clause from the fifth key-interaction item, changing “Oral collagen peptides, hyaluronic acid, vitamin C (no caution required; benefit attribution becomes impossible)” to “Oral collagen peptides, hyaluronic acid, vitamin C (no caution required)”. The ER’s severity grading was kept, as item 9.5 requires, while the elaboration was removed.