evipedia.ai ← Back to Review

Audit: QRS - Aloe vera for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 26/07/2026 01:20 using AI4L / Opus 4.8

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 91
Passed 81
Failed 0
N/A 10
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 doses, monitoring targets, benefits/risks tiers, and at-a-glance all trace to ER content.
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. 🟢 Cautious framing preserved (e.g., speculative tiers, “modest signals”).
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”). 🟢 Contraindications kept as hard gates; benefit strength unchanged.
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/Interactions from ER Key Interactions & Contraindications; benefits/risks from their own sections.
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. 🟢 QRS contains no citations, NCT IDs, or brand names.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 No attributions introduced.

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. 🟢 Objective, “form matters” framing mirrors the ER.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Meets tone requirement.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 Presents evidence, not directives.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 No prescriptive medical advice in variable content.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 Information-presenting throughout.
2.6 The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance 🟢 No second-person address in variable content.
2.7 The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon 🟢 Plain-language phrasing used.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Compact one-page layout.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 No direct reader 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. 🟢 Framing suits the target audience.
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. 🟢 Consistent with audience.
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. 🟢 Not general-population framing.
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. 🟢 Weighting reflects the audience.
2.14 The document’s own voice frames usage in longevity terms, not “anti-aging”. Proper names that contain “anti-aging” are quoted verbatim. 🟢 No “anti-aging” language present.
2.15 The document’s own voice uses formal clinical and scientific terminology, not colloquial or consumer-grade language. Direct quotes from sources are exempt. 🟢 Formal terminology in body; plain terms confined to at-a-glance per 7.4.

3. Template Integrity

# Description Result Comments
3.1 The following labels and headings on the QRS are fixed and not modified: card/section headings, gate headings, tier labels, Monitoring table column headers. 🟢 All fixed labels and headings intact.
3.2 All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the QRS. 🟢 Full set of variable spans present.
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 No unaddressed spans modified.

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. N/A No source ER section relevant to the QRS is empty.
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. 🟢 Qualitative labels match ER bold labels verbatim.
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Labels preserved.
4.4 The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). 🟢 No emoji indicators; “⚠️ Conflicted” marker correctly stripped.
4.5 The QRS is designed to render on one A4 page. 🟢 Content fits the one-page budget.

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. 🟢 Comment block at lines 2–14.
5.2 Inside that HTML comment the YAML block is delimited by a line “—” opening and a line “—” closing. 🟢 Delimited at lines 3 and 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 HTML comment; not rendered.
5.4 All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading/trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless required by YAML. 🟢 Values clean; duration quoted for the colon.
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”. 🟢 er_filename: aloe_vera_2026-0726-0005_Opus_ER.md
5.6 Version of the QRS.md file used is stated as “qrs_prompt_version”. 🟢 qrs_prompt_version: 26.7.02
5.7 Creation date and time is stated as “qrs_creation_date: [YYYY-MMDD-HHMM]”. 🟢 qrs_creation_date: 2026-0726-0113
5.8 The nickname of the AI is stated as “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. 🟢 “Opus”
5.10 The full name of the AI is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_fullname”. 🟢 qrs_creator_ai_fullname: Opus 4.8
5.11 The full name of the AI consists of the nickname and the model version number and no additional qualifier. 🟢 “Opus 4.8”
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename”. 🟢 qrs_filename: aloe_vera_2026-0726-0005_Opus_QRS.html
5.13 All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading/trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless required by YAML. 🟢 Values trimmed and consistent.

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”, HTML-entity-encoded as needed. 🟢 “Aloe vera for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet”.
6.2 [header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, HTML entities encoded as needed. 🟢 “Aloe vera for Health & Longevity”.
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]. 🟢 2026-0726-0113 → 07/26/2026.
6.4 [header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]. 🟢 “Opus 4.8”.
6.5 No additional header content appears: no badge, version stamp, AKA line, source-AI attribution, audit date, or QRS variant marker. 🟢 Only standard subline content present.

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 two-ingredient conclusion.
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words. 🟢 52 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Facts trace to the ER Conclusion.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge. 🟢 Uses “blood sugar”, “cholesterol”, plain terms.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values). 🟢 No trial citations.
7.6 It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results. 🟢 No statistics cited.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section. 🟢 Derived from “Populations who should avoid it”.
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER. 🟢 All eight contraindications represented.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>. 🟢 Each item is a discrete <li>.
8.4 Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, elaborations, rationale, attributions, citations, or content after a dash. 🟢 Trailing “— a kidney-function measure” removed; items concise.
8.5 Parenthetical qualifiers from the ER bullet — time windows, severity classes, threshold values, clinical staging — ARE preserved, kept concise. 🟢 “(oral latex/whole-leaf)”, “(Crohn’s, ulcerative colitis)”, “(eGFR below 30)” preserved.
8.6 When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>” for severity ordering), normalize items to a plain comma-separated list. N/A ER contraindications use no ranking notation.
8.7 If no [stop_items] are present the section is left empty. N/A Contraindications are present.

9. Key Interactions

# Description Result Comments
9.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section. 🟢 Derived from the ER interactions bullets.
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any already listed as Contraindications. 🟢 Interactions listed; no overlap with contraindications.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>. 🟢 Each item is a discrete <li>.
9.4 Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, rationale, attributions, citations, or content after a dash. 🟢 Mechanistic clauses removed; items concise.
9.5 Parenthetical qualifiers from the ER bullet — example drug lists, time windows, severity classes, thresholds, staging — ARE preserved, kept concise. 🟢 Example drugs kept (e.g., senna, bisacodyl; berberine, cinnamon, bitter melon, chromium); class examples trimmed but retained.
9.6 When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>”), normalize items to a plain comma-separated list. N/A ER interactions use no ranking notation.
9.7 If no [caution_items] are present the section is left empty. N/A Key Interactions are present.

10. Protocol

# Description Result Comments
10.1 The section is derived from the ER Protocol section. 🟢 Form/Dose/Timing trace to the ER Therapeutic Protocol.
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section. 🟢 Form, Dose, Timing.
10.3 If less than three distinct actionable implementation aspects are mentioned, the unused sets are left empty and made invisible. N/A Three actionable aspects are present.
10.4 All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section. 🟢 All action cells populated with ER-derived content.

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. 🟢 Laxative, glucose & lipids, burn & wound healing.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit. 🟢 High (laxative) then Medium benefits.
11.3 If less than three distinct time-to-effect aspects are mentioned, the unused sets are left empty and made invisible. N/A Three time-to-effect aspects are present.
11.4 All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER. 🟢 Values match ER Practical Considerations.
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 ER provides time-to-effect information.

12. Benefits

# Description Result Comments
12.1 The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section. 🟢 Tiers mirror the ER Expected Benefits.
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]. 🟢 All four tier variables populated.
12.3 Items are as concise as possible. No explanations, effect sizes, qualifiers, attributions, citations, study details, or mechanistic explanations. 🟢 Bare benefit labels only.
12.4 Parenthetical content — effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, example studies — is stripped. 🟢 “(Topical)” stripped from wound/oral entries.
12.5 If no items of a specific sub-section are present the respective SPAN is set to display=none. N/A All four tiers contain items.

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section. 🟢 Tiers mirror the ER risk section.
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]. 🟢 All four tier variables populated.
13.3 Items are as concise as possible. No explanations, effect sizes, qualifiers, attributions, citations, study details, or mechanistic explanations. 🟢 Bare risk labels only.
13.4 Parenthetical content — frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, example studies — is stripped. 🟢 “(Topical)” and “⚠️ Conflicted” removed.
13.5 If no items of a specific sub-section are present the respective SPAN is set to display=none. N/A All four tiers contain items.

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section. 🟢 Markers and targets match the ER Monitoring table.
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed. 🟢 All six biomarkers listed with targets.
14.3 [monitoring_cadence] is populated with the monitoring cadence/frequency derived from the ER Monitoring section. 🟢 Cadence matches the ER ongoing-monitoring text.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section. 🟢 From the ER “Qualitative markers of success”.
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed. 🟢 All four qualitative markers listed.

Issues 26/07/2026 01:20

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.