Audit: QRS - Gou-teng for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 18/08/2026 09:13 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	83
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.	🟢	Every populated variable traces to ER text: protocol cells to ER lines 339/341/343, time cells to line 398, benefit/risk tiers to the ER #### headings, monitoring rows verbatim from the ER biomarker table (lines 442-449), qualitative items verbatim from lines 434-438.
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.	🟢	marker_7_target retains the ER’s “No established target for this herb; track the direction of change from the individual’s own baseline”.
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”).	🟢	Contraindication thresholds (potassium below 3.5 mmol/L, eGFR below 30, heart rate below 50, systolic below 100 mmHg) are carried at the ER’s own strength.
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.	🟢	All caution items map to ER Key Interactions & Contraindications bullets; all stop items map to the ER’s “Populations who should avoid Gou-teng” list plus the digoxin absolute-contraindication bullet. No Benefit- or Risk-Modifying Factor is surfaced elsewhere.
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 identifiers, author names, or brand names (e.g., Tsumura) appear anywhere in the QRS. Generic drug names in the interaction list are the ER’s own examples.
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.	🟢	Measured, evidence-weighted register matching the ER; the herb-versus-formula distinction is carried through in at_a_glance and risks_high.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Benefits card is full-width and leads the body; thresholds and targets are given as actionable numbers rather than warnings.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Monitoring cadence and protocol cells state what was tested and measured rather than instructing.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative clinical instructions; gates and monitoring rows are stated as facts and reference values.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “recommended”, “advised”, or “should” constructions in the QRS body.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the document.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms retained (pseudoaldosteronism, eGFR, Child-Pugh, CYP3A4) are load-bearing and taken from the ER; no avoidable jargon.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	All items are noun-phrase length; ER magnitudes, mechanisms, and citations are stripped throughout.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — no direct address in any span.
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 willingness to run a baseline panel, home blood-pressure series, and 8-marker follow-up.
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.	🟢	Decoction timing rule, split dosing, and repeat laboratory panels 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.	🟢	Optimal functional ranges (e.g., ALT below 25 U/L in men) rather than conventional laboratory limits are used.
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 foregrounds that the strongest effect is a dementia-population result and that the main harm comes from a co-formulated herb, which is the decision-relevant framing 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.	🟢	The string “anti-aging” does not occur; the title uses “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)”; “injection” not “shot”; “adverse event” not “bad reaction”). Direct quotes from sources are exempt.	🟢	“beats per minute”, “gastrointestinal upset”, “orthostatic hypotension”, “direct oral anticoagulant” used throughout; 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, 566, 592, 615, 643, 647-649, 778).
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 34 template variable names present; the only additions are the expected repeats of the marker_#_* row and qualitative_item_# list item.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	Structural diff against the template shows no change outside variable content and the repeated monitoring/qualitative rows; the website="evidence_review", website="audit", and website="full_review" 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 feeding the QRS is empty; every benefit tier, risk tier, gate list, protocol, monitoring, and qualitative source is populated.
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.	🟢	Protocol labels “Crude herb decoction”, “Concentrated granule, single herb”, “Late addition to the decoction” are verbatim ER bold labels (lines 339, 341, 343); interaction labels match the ER bold labels with only the post-em-dash clause stripped per 9.4.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	All eight monitoring marker names and all five qualitative labels are verbatim ER strings; protocol and interaction labels are verbatim.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	Zero emoji characters in the file; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” markers on blood pressure and liver injury 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 condensed relative to the ER: magnitudes and mechanisms stripped from benefits and risks, drug example lists trimmed to three per interaction, marker “Context/Notes” column dropped entirely, and marker_7_target shortened from the ER’s full sentence.

---

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.	🟢	Single comment spanning 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; the “QRS — Metadata” caption on line 2 precedes the opening delimiter.
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 head 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 requiring it.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: gou_teng_2026-0825-0815_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: 2026-0818-0857, correct format.
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: qrs_filename: gou_teng_2026-0825-0815_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 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: Gou-teng for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet, matching ER canonical_topic with the ampersand encoded.
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: Gou-teng for Health & Longevity.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: 08/18/2026, derived from 2026-0818-0857.
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 the 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	🟢	Lines 434-438 compress the ER Conclusion’s four paragraphs into mechanism, strongest effect, conflicted blood-pressure evidence, preclinical-only neuroprotection, and the licorice-attributed harm.
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.	🟢	Maps to ER lines 473 (vasodilation and receptor action), 475 (strongest finding; contradictory blood pressure; cells and animals), and 477 (licorice-driven potassium loss).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	Uses “brain receptor governing arousal”, “potassium loss”, “licorice”, “protecting brain cells” — no acronyms and no clinical-register vocabulary.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial is named or sized.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers of any kind appear.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	Drawn from the “Populations who should avoid Gou-teng” list (ER lines 306-315) plus the digoxin absolute-contraindication bullet (line 286).
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All ten ER avoidance populations are present, plus the licorice-conditional digoxin contraindication.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Ten <li> elements inside the stop_items span (lines 569-587).
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 explanatory glosses (“moderate to severe liver-function failure”, “severely reduced kidney filtration”, “a failing natural pacemaker”, “in whom no controlled safety data exist”) are all stripped; no dashes introduce 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).	🟢	Every decision threshold survives: 3.5 mmol/L, twice the upper reference limit, Child-Pugh Class B or C, 30 mL/min/1.73 m², 50 beats per minute, second-/third-degree block, 100 mmHg, under 18.
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 contraindication 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.	🟢	The ER names ten 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 eleven items map to ER bullets at lines 280-302.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	The standalone digoxin bullet and the warfarin/DOAC anticoagulant arm are excluded because both sit in stop_items; the antiplatelet arm of the ER’s combined bullet is correctly retained.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eleven <li> elements inside the caution_items span (lines 595-605).
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” action clauses and every “Consequence:” sentence are stripped; each item is label plus example drugs only.
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 bullet that carried named drugs retains a parenthetical (amlodipine/lisinopril/losartan; verapamil/diltiazem/digoxin; furosemide/prednisolone; aspirin/clopidogrel; tacrolimus/ciclosporin/simvastatin; lorazepam/zolpidem/opioids; ibuprofen/naproxen; dietary nitrate/hibiscus/magnesium; valerian/kava/melatonin), trimmed to three examples but never dropped.
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.	🟢	The ER names twelve interaction bullets 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 derive from ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets at lines 339, 341, and 343.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Crude-herb dosing, the only placebo-tested monotherapy regimen, and the late-addition preparation rule the ER itself calls “the single best-known preparation rule for the herb”.
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 Therapeutic Protocol section contains thirteen bullets, well above three.
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 populated: 3–12 g/day, 1.2 g twice daily, final 10–20 minutes, 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	🟢	Behavioural symptoms, blood pressure, and cognition — exactly the three windows named in the ER’s “Time to effect” bullet (line 398).
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Order is behavioural (ER High tier), blood pressure (Medium tier), cognition (Low tier).
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 names three distinct time-to-effect aspects.
11.4	All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER.	🟢	4–12 weeks, 2–4 weeks, and 16 weeks, each with an ER-derived sub-line drawn from lines 398 and 343.
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 explicit 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	🟢	All six items correspond to the ER’s #### benefit headings at lines 158, 166, 174, 180, 188, 192, and 196.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated at the correct tiers, matching the ER’s High/Medium/Low/Speculative grouping.
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.	🟢	Only the ER heading text is carried; the standardised mean differences, confidence intervals, and mechanistic paragraphs are all dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any benefits span.
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.	N/A	All four ER benefit tiers contain entries, so no span needed hiding.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All eight items correspond to the ER’s #### risk headings at lines 220, 228, 236, 242, 248, 256, and 260.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated at the ER’s own tiers.
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 17.4% hypokalemia rate, the 2.4 reporting odds ratio, and the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” marker on liver injury are all correctly omitted.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any risks span.
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.	N/A	All four ER risk tiers contain entries, so no span needed hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All rows drawn from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table (lines 440-449).
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All eight ER biomarkers present: serum potassium, home seated blood pressure, resting heart rate, ALT and AST, eGFR, serum magnesium, plasma renin activity and aldosterone, cognitive screen. Names, targets, and “Why Measure It?” text are 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.	🟢	Lines 767-772 reproduce the ER’s cadence from line 428-430: baseline with a full week of blood pressure and heart rate, week 4, week 8, 6 months, then every 6–12 months, with 4-weekly potassium on licorice, diuretic, or corticosteroid.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Drawn from the ER’s “Qualitative markers tracked alongside laboratory values” list (lines 434-438).
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All five present and verbatim: agitation and irritability, sleep continuity, daytime alertness, muscle weakness or cramping, dizziness on standing.

Issues 18/08/2026 09:13

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 18/08/2026 09:05

1. 1.3 — At-A-Glance overstates contradiction: [at_a_glance] (line 436) says “Added blood-pressure lowering is contradicted”, which reads as refuted; the ER Conclusion (line 475) says only that “the evidence is contradictory”, i.e. conflicting.
2. 9.5 — Drug example lists not trimmed: [caution_items] carries the ER example lists at full length — six supplements at line 606 and five central nervous system depressants at line 601 — rather than trimming them to the one-page budget.

Fixes 18/08/2026 09:05

1. 1.3 — At-A-Glance contradiction overstated: Rewrote “Added blood-pressure lowering is contradicted” as “Evidence on added blood-pressure lowering is contradictory”, matching the ER Conclusion; the section remains within the 60-word budget at 59 words.
2. 9.5 — Drug example lists trimmed: Shortened the parenthetical example lists in [caution_items] to three representative drugs each — supplements from six to “dietary nitrate, hibiscus, magnesium”, central nervous system depressants from five to “lorazepam, zolpidem, opioids”, and the antihypertensive, rate-slowing and diuretic/corticosteroid lists from four or three to three or two — without dropping any class entirely.