Audit: QRS - Coluracetam for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 19/09/2026 07:45 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 ranges to Therapeutic Protocol, gate items to Key Interactions & Contraindications, markers to the Monitoring Protocol table, lede to Conclusion.
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 target; track change from own baseline” and “No demonstrated benefit” 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”).	🟢	Avoid-list populations stay in the stop gate; “unresolved, not disproven” matches the ER Conclusion’s own weighting.
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 only from the ER avoid-list; interactions only from the ER interaction bullets; no modifying factors imported.
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.	🟢	Only “Braintropic” and “Nootropics Expert” appear, both attached to the same dose ranges in the ER Therapeutic Protocol. No PMIDs or NCT IDs.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attribution appears that is absent from the ER.

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, evidence-first register as the ER.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Numeric targets and cadence give the reader something actionable while the evidence gap is stated plainly.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Protocol cells describe community and trial practice rather than issuing instructions.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperatives; footer disclaimer retained unchanged.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	Cadence and protocol are stated impersonally (“Baseline before the first dose; resting heart rate weekly…”).
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronoun anywhere in the file.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	“cytopenias (low blood cell counts)” glossed; lede avoids technical classification.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	All gate items are noun phrases; subs are one or two short sentences.
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.	🟢	Seven-marker panel and defined cadence assume a proactive, testing-oriented 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.	🟢	Specialty-lab plasma free choline and repeated blood panels are retained rather than dropped as burdensome.
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 simplification toward a casual consumer reading.
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.	🟢	Lede closes on “Inexpensive and easy to obtain; unresolved, not disproven” — the decision framing 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; title carries “Health & Longevity”.
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.	🟢	“Oral dosing is with a fat-containing meal” uses the formal route term; no “pill”, “by mouth”, “shot” or similar 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”	🟢	All fourteen fixed strings match the template byte-for-byte (lines 446, 492, 543, 571, 586, 607, 633, 637–639, 761).
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	Variable-name set is identical to the template’s; 62 spans total (34 singletons + 7 marker rows × 3 + 7 qualitative items).
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	Structural diff against the template shows changes confined to variable regions; CSS, website= spans, comments and footer 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 drawn on by the QRS is empty; the absent benefit/risk tiers are handled under 12.5 and 13.5 instead.
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.	🟢	“Community standard dose”, “Best time of day”, “Pairing with a choline source” are the ER’s bold labels verbatim (ER lines 304, 312, 318).
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	All seven marker names match the ER biomarker table verbatim; protocol labels are verbatim ER bold labels.
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 “⚠️ Conflicted” marker was 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 condensed against the ER — trailing em-dash clauses stripped, parentheticals trimmed, “why” cells reduced to single clauses; no ER-length prose carried over.

---

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.
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 --- line 3, closing --- 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 repeated in the 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: coluracetam_2026-0919-0443_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: 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: 2026-0919-0723.
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: 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]”	🟢	Line 8: 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 own 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: “Coluracetam 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 &)	🟢	Line 417: “Coluracetam for Health & Longevity”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: 09/19/2026, matching qrs_creation_date: 2026-0919-0723.
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 holds only title and the template subline; the ER’s “Also known as: MKC-231, BCI-540” 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 four Conclusion paragraphs — target, evidence provenance, trial failure, side effects, cost — into five sentences.
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 a distinct Conclusion sentence (ER lines 433, 435, 437, 439).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “the brain’s main memory chemical” replaces the acetylcholine/cholinergic vocabulary used elsewhere in the ER.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	“The one human study” — no identifier, year or sample size.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers of any kind in the lede.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All eight items come from the “Populations who should avoid Coluracetam” list (ER lines 275–282).
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All eight ER avoid-list entries are present, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eight <li> elements, lines 574–581.
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 post-em-dash clauses (“— no reproductive toxicity data of any kind exist”, the cytopenia threshold list) are stripped; no dash-trailing content remains.
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).	🟢	“(low blood cell counts)”, “(below 50 beats per minute)”, the 21–60 year window, “second- or third-degree” staging and “with active bronchospasm” 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’s avoid-list 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.	🟢	Section is populated, and the ER does name such populations.
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	Section is not empty.

9. Key Interactions

#	Description	Result	Comments
9.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All nine items come from the ER interaction bullets (ER lines 255–271).
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All nine ER interaction bullets present; no overlap with the stop gate.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Nine <li> elements, lines 589–597.
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.	🟢	The ER’s “— caution”, “— monitor”, consequence and mitigation clauses are all stripped; only the agent class and its examples 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).	🟢	Every ER example-drug list is carried; the sleep-aid list is trimmed only of diphenhydramine, which already appears in the anticholinergics 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’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.	🟢	Section is populated, and the ER does name such interactions.
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	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.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Dose, timing and choline pairing — the three levers the ER’s own Risk Mitigation Strategies also names first.
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 provides thirteen protocol bullets; 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 cells populated; values and subs match ER lines 304, 308, 310, 312, 318.

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	🟢	Trial dosing period, cognitive-effect timescale and acute perceptual onset — the three timescales the ER states.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Low-tier mood/anxiety first, then the two Speculative benefits in the ER’s own order.
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 time-to-effect aspects exist in the ER; all 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 cells populated; “30–60 minutes” and “4–8 week timescale” match ER line 363.
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’s Practical Considerations opens with an explicit “Time to effect” bullet.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	All seven entries are ER Expected Benefits sub-headings.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present, lines 545–564.
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 reduced to bare benefit phrases; “in Everyday Use” and the “⚠️ Conflicted” marker dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses 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.	🟢	benefits_high and benefits_medium carry style="display: none" (lines 545, 548); the ER grades no benefit at those tiers.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All seven entries are ER Potential Risks & Side Effects sub-headings.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present, lines 609–627.
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.	🟢	“Exposure to Mislabeled or Adulterated Product” reduced to “Mislabeled or adulterated product”; the 75% / 9-of-12 magnitude figure correctly omitted.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses 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.	🟢	risks_high and risks_medium carry style="display: none" (lines 609, 612); the ER grades no risk at those tiers.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Rows and targets taken from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success table.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All seven ER table rows present — complete blood count, ALT, resting heart rate, fasting glucose, homocysteine, plasma free choline, symptom/cognitive scale.
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 751–755 reproduce the ER’s cadence sentence (baseline, weekly-then-monthly heart rate, 12-week panel, 2/8-week then quarterly scale).

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Items taken from the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the panel” list.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All seven ER qualitative markers present (ER lines 405–411), condensed but none dropped.

Issues 19/09/2026 07:45

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 19/09/2026 07:36

1. 1.3 — Contraindication qualifiers dropped: Line 581 renders the ER’s “Asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with active bronchospasm” as “with bronchospasm”, and line 580 renders “mechanical urinary or intestinal obstruction” as “urinary or intestinal obstruction”; both omissions broaden the gate beyond what the ER states.

Fixes 19/09/2026 07:36

1. 1.3 — Contraindication qualifiers restored: Restored the ER’s qualifiers in the Contraindications gate — “urinary or intestinal obstruction” back to “mechanical urinary or intestinal obstruction”, and “with bronchospasm” back to “with active bronchospasm”.

Issues 19/09/2026 07:30

1. 1.1 / 1.3 / 7.3 — At-A-Glance overstates lab origin: Line 435 claims “Animal results came only from the owner’s own laboratory”, but the ER scopes this to mechanism evidence (“the evidence for how the compound acts comes entirely from the laboratory of the company that owned it”, ER line 435) and explicitly names independent rodent work (ER lines 159, 167, 426).
2. 4.5 — Content exceeds one A4 page: Visible text runs to 842 words / 5,935 characters; at the sheet’s print geometry the Protocol subs (lines 456–541), the two decision gates (lines 579–610) and the 7-row Monitoring table (lines 655–771) together occupy roughly twice the available page height.

Fixes 19/09/2026 07:30

1. 1.1 / 1.3 / 7.3 — At-A-Glance lab-origin claim rescoped: Replaced “Animal results came only from the owner’s own laboratory” with “Evidence for how it acts comes only from the owning company’s laboratory”, matching the ER’s scoping of that claim to mechanism evidence; the passage now runs 59 words.
2. 4.5 — Protocol and Time-to-Effect cells condensed: Trimmed all six sub-texts to one or two short sentences each (e.g., action_1_sub from 232 to 137 characters, time_2_sub from 176 to 102), removing a line from every cell in both grid rows.
3. 4.5 — Decision gates condensed: Shortened contraindication and interaction items to their key facts while keeping every item, every named example drug and every threshold, cutting the Contraindications gate from 14 to 12 wrapped lines and Key Interactions from 17 to 15.
4. 4.5 — Monitoring table and cadence condensed: Tightened all seven “Why” cells, two “Target” cells and the cadence sentence (e.g., “Converts a subjective impression into a comparable number”), removing roughly a quarter of the table’s height.
5. 4.5 — Benefits, Risks and Qualitative items tightened: Dropped redundant qualifiers (“in everyday use”, “Exposure to”) and shortened two qualitative markers, saving a line in each of the three cards.