Audit: QRS - Evodia rutaecarpa for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 18/08/2026 05:42 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.	🟢	Protocol doses (3–9 g/day; 2–5 g/day), time-to-effect (4–8 weeks), all gate items, benefit/risk tiers, all 8 biomarker rows and all 6 qualitative items trace to ER Therapeutic Protocol, 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.	🟢	At-a-glance keeps the ER’s “the biology is real and the clinical case is unmade” and “have not been demonstrated in people”; marker 8 keeps “No established target”.
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”).	🟢	Pregnancy and breastfeeding remain absolute contraindications; narrow-margin CYP1A2 drugs stay in the stop gate while the remaining substrates sit in the caution gate, mirroring the ER’s own split.
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 modifying factor is surfaced as a gate item; contraindications come only from the ER’s “Populations who should avoid” list and interactions only from the ER’s interaction bullets.
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, author names, NCT identifiers or brand names appear anywhere in the QRS.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions of any kind are present.

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 measured, sceptical register (“the clinical case is unmade”).
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Quantified targets, thresholds and cadence are given without alarmism or exhortation.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Impersonal constructions throughout (“Late-evening dosing is avoided…”).
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperatives; protocol cells describe practice rather than instruct.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “recommended”, “should”, or “advised” 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 file.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms are limited to gate and biomarker entries where precision is load-bearing (eGFR, CYP1A2, ALT).
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Gate items are single clauses; protocol sub-lines are one sentence each.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed by full-text scan for you/your.
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.	🟢	Functional biomarker targets, cycling schedule and pre-surgery window presuppose an engaged, protocol-following 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.	🟢	Baseline plus 4-week, 12-week and 6-monthly panels, plus drug-level tracking, are presented without hedging on 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.	🟢	No simplified or reassurance-oriented 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.	🟢	The at-a-glance weighs a thin benefit picture against liver injury and silent drug-efficacy loss, the decision-relevant asymmetry for this audience.
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.	🟢	Title uses “Health & Longevity”; the phrase “anti-aging” does not appear.
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)”; “injection” not “shot”; “adverse event” not “bad reaction”). Direct quotes from sources are exempt.	🟢	“Decoction”, “oesophagitis”, “antiplatelet”, “enzyme induction” — 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 present verbatim (lines 444, 484, 530, 554, 571, 597, 625, 629–631, 747).
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	64 data-qrs-var spans present, covering every variable named in the checklist (header, at-a-glance, 3 action sets, 3 time sets, 4 benefit tiers, 4 risk tiers, both gates, 8 markers × 3, cadence, 6 qualitative items).
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"> remain as template defaults; hidden tier spans retain their template <li><strong>…</strong></li> stubs.

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 is empty; empty benefit/risk tiers are governed by items 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.	🟢	“Standard traditional protocol”, “Chinese Pharmacopoeia protocol”, “Best time of day”, “Time to effect”, “Sensory desensitization”, “Cycling” are verbatim ER bold labels; marker names are verbatim ER table entries.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	No invented or shortened labels detected.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	Full-text scan returns no tier emoji; the ER’s ⚠️ Conflicted flags are 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.	🟢	Gate items, benefit and risk tiers are compressed to single clauses and the 8-row monitoring table uses 9 pt type, keeping the sheet within the single-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 opens on line 2, immediately after the doctype 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 --- 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 metadata value is repeated in the header or footer.
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: evodia_rutaecarpa_2026-0825-0241_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 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: 2026-0818-0537.
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” is a single word with 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 own name.
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 10 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: “Evodia rutaecarpa 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: “Evodia rutaecarpa for Health & Longevity”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: “08/18/2026”, matching qrs_creation_date: 2026-0818-0537.
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 contains only title and the template subline; the ER’s “Also known as” list is 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’s traditional use, unmade clinical case and the liver/enzyme counterweight.
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 sentence of the ER Conclusion (lines 481–483).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	Uses “liver-injury signal” and “liver-enzyme effect” rather than DILI or CYP1A2; no acronyms present.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial names, years or sample sizes.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numeric results of any kind.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All 7 items map to the ER’s “Populations who should avoid Evodia rutaecarpa” list (ER lines 330–336).
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All 7 ER populations are present, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Seven <li> elements inside the stop_items 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.	🟢	ER trailing clauses “— documented uterus-contracting activity and no safety data” and “— no data at any dose” are stripped; no dashes remain in any item.
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).	🟢	Child-Pugh Class A “or worse”, the eGFR < 60 mL/min/1.73 m² threshold and the 14-day pre-surgery window 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 inside parentheses in its contraindication list.
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 seven such populations, 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 9 items map one-to-one to the ER’s interaction bullets (ER lines 310–326).
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	The CYP1A2 bullet is rendered as “Other CYP1A2 substrates” with theophylline and clozapine removed, since those sit in the stop gate.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Nine <li> elements inside the caution_items 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.	🟢	Every ER mechanism sentence and mitigation clause is dropped; the ER’s em-dash lists are converted to parentheses.
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 named example drugs and agents are retained for every bullet that carries them.
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 its interaction list.
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 nine interactions, and the section is correspondingly 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 come from the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets (ER lines 360–368).
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	The ER’s two dose ranges (traditional and Pharmacopoeia) and dose timing are the three decision-bearing bullets.
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 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 cells populated: 3–9 g/day, 2–5 g/day and with-meals timing, each with an ER-derived sub-line.

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	🟢	Time to effect (4–8 weeks), sensory desensitization (days) and cycling (4–8 weeks on) are the ER’s only three time-anchored statements.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	The assessment window for the headache and digestive benefits leads, followed by tolerance-related desensitization, then the cycling schedule.
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 cells populated from ER Practical Considerations and Discontinuation & Cycling.
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 states a 4–8 week assessment point, so the section is retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	Both populated tiers mirror the ER’s Low and Speculative headings.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present (lines 532, 535, 538, 545).
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.	🟢	Each entry is a bare noun phrase; the ER’s Magnitude paragraphs and ⚠️ Conflicted flags are dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear 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", matching the ER’s statement that no benefit reaches those levels.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	Medium, Low and Speculative tiers mirror the ER headings exactly.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present (lines 599, 602, 608, 614).
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.	🟢	Each entry is a bare noun phrase; ER mechanism and Magnitude text is dropped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any 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 carries style="display: none", matching the ER’s statement that no risk reaches that level.

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 (ER lines 443–452).
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 8 ER table rows are present, with Optimal Functional Range values 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, 4 weeks, 12 weeks, then 6-monthly, plus the post-dose-increase panel and post-stop drug level, matching ER line 441.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Items come from the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the labs” list (ER lines 456–461).
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 6 ER qualitative markers are present and verbatim.

Issues 18/08/2026 05:42

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.