Audit: QRS - Green Oat Extract for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 18/08/2026 10:58 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	86
Failed	0
N/A	7
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: protocol doses (ER Therapeutic Protocol), time-to-effect values (ER Practical Considerations / Expected Benefits), all 8 markers and cadence (ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success), all benefit/risk items (ER tier headings), all gates (ER Key Interactions & Contraindications).
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.	🟢	ER hedges carried over, e.g. “unknown safety beyond three months”, “at or below optimal for acute effect”, “unless supervised by the treating neurologist”.
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/breastfeeding and paediatric use remain in the Contraindications gate, not downgraded to Key Interactions; Caution/Monitor verdicts match the ER bullets one-for-one.
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.	🟢	Seated blood pressure appears as a Monitoring marker, matching the ER Monitoring Protocol sentence “Seated blood pressure is recorded on three separate days”; no modifying factor is promoted to 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.	🟢	The QRS carries no PMIDs, author names, NCT identifiers or brand names at all.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions 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, supplier-funding-aware register, including “Taking more has repeatedly worked less well than taking less”.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Actionable dose, timing, time-to-effect and self-measurable endpoints are presented without hype.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Presents doses and verdicts as observed protocol data, not instructions.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	“Caution”/”Monitor” verdicts are the ER’s own classifications; no imperative clinical directives added.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “should”, “recommended” or “advised” 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 sheet.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms are confined to biomarker names taken verbatim from the ER table, each with its abbreviation expanded.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	All cells are short phrases; no sentence exceeds one line of substance.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed; qualitative items are noun phrases (“Ease of sustaining attention…”, “Ability to hold a second task in mind…”).
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 timed cognitive baselines and a blood panel.
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.	🟢	Two-session baseline testing, weekly blood pressure and specialist FMD ultrasound are retained rather than dropped as impractical.
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 and qualitative sections presume a self-experimentation discipline.
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 the non-linear dose-response and the modest, task-specific size of the effect.
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 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.	🟢	Formal register throughout; the one informal-sounding phrase, “juggling two tasks”, is the ER Conclusion’s own wording and is required by 7.4’s plain-language rule.

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 byte-identical to the template (lines 445, 488, 535, 564, 579, 617, 642, 646–648, 779 and the four tier labels).
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 25 distinct template variable names present; marker_#_* expanded to markers 1–8 and qualitative_item_# to items 1–5.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	Diff against the template shows changes only inside data-qrs-var spans; website="evidence_review", website="audit", website="full_review", the CSS block and the footer disclaimer 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”	🟢	The only empty ER sub-sections are the High benefit and High risk tiers, which items 12.5/13.5 require to be hidden rather than filled; no other section required 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 dose”, “Best time of day”, “Alternative low-dose approach” verbatim from ER Therapeutic Protocol; all nine interaction labels verbatim apart from the drug-list trimming that item 9.5 explicitly permits.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Marker names match the ER biomarker table verbatim; benefit and risk items match the ER tier headings.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji code points 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 already condensed to short phrases with no elaborations; the ER’s 12-bullet protocol is reduced to 3 cells and its multi-sentence tier entries to single clauses.

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; the preamble text sits on line 2.
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.	🟢	Comment only; no metadata value is 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: green_oat_extract_2026-0825-0924_Opus_ER.md, matching the ER on disk.
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: 26.7.02, 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: 2026-0818-1038.
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.
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.	🟢	Confirmed for all nine keys.

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: “Green Oat Extract 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, correctly entity-encoded.
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: 2026-0818-1038.
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 subline only; the ER’s “Also known as” list was 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	🟢	Distils the four load-bearing points of the ER Conclusion: what the material is, the size and speed of the effect, the inverse dose-response, and the safety verdict.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	54 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Each of the four statements maps to a separate sentence of the ER Conclusion (paragraphs 1–3).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “juggling two tasks” replaces “dual-task performance” and “harvested green” replaces the botanical description.
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	🟢	Only the qualitative “small, task-specific gain”.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All five items come from the “Populations who should avoid Green Oat Extract” list in that ER section.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All five ER avoid-list entries present, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Five <li> elements, lines 567–574.
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 “— absolute contraindication”, “— no safety data at any dose” and “— no trial has enrolled anyone below 18…” are all 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).	🟢	“(below 20 parts per million)” retained; “on established dopaminergic therapy, unless supervised by the treating neurologist” retained as the applicability qualifier.
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.	🟢	The ER does name such populations, and the section is correctly populated rather than empty.
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 nine items map one-to-one to the nine interaction bullets of that ER section.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All nine ER interaction bullets carried; none duplicates an avoid-list population.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Nine <li> elements, lines 582–607.
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.	🟢	Each item is reduced to “label: verdict”; the ER’s mechanistic sentences (“Additive dopamine-sparing effect could cause…”, “Shared nitric oxide pathway means…”) are all stripped. The only em-dash is inside the ER’s own bold label “Other interventions — cognitive training and exercise programmes”, which item 4.2 requires verbatim.
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 drug list retained in shortened form (e.g. “(selegiline, rasagiline)”, “(warfarin, clopidogrel)”); none dropped entirely.
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 nine such 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 sourced from 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	🟢	Standard dose, timing and the low-dose alternative are the three decision-relevant levers, the last one carrying the ER’s central finding that lower doses outperform higher ones.
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, so 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 fields populated; e.g. “800 mg daily” and “at or below optimal for acute effect” are verbatim ER Therapeutic Protocol.

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	🟢	Acute cognitive (1–6 hours), chronic cognitive (29 days) and vascular (12 weeks) — the only three onset windows the ER quantifies.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	The two cognitive windows (ER Medium tier) precede the vascular window (ER 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 supplies three distinct time-to-effect aspects, so 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 fields populated from ER Practical Considerations, Expected Benefits and Therapeutic Protocol.
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 does provide 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 eight items correspond to the ER’s #### benefit headings, in ER order.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present, lines 537–557.
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” paragraphs (41% FMD increase, 66.7% vs 49.3%, p-values) are all omitted.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses in any benefit item.
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’s High tier states “No benefit reaches this evidence level”; the span at line 537 carries style="display: none" with no empty-state text.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All six items correspond to the ER’s #### risk headings, in ER order.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present, lines 619–636.
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 dose figures (1600/2400/800/430/860 mg) and the Hardy et al. 8% figure are all omitted.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses in any risk item; the ER’s “(hives)” and “(a rapid, whole-body allergic reaction)” glosses are dropped.
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’s High tier states “No risk reaches this evidence level”; the span at line 619 carries style="display: none" with no empty-state text.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Markers, targets and rationales taken from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table and its opening paragraph.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All seven ER table rows are present (timed cognitive battery, brachial FMD, hs-CRP, homocysteine, HbA1c, ALT, tTG-IgA) plus seated blood pressure from the same ER section’s narrative.
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 770 reproduces the ER’s cadence sentence: battery at 4 and 12 weeks, weekly blood pressure for the first month on antihypertensives, blood panel at 6 months then annually.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Taken from the “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the numbers” list.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All five ER qualitative bullets present, in ER order, with their trailing rationale clauses trimmed.

Issues 18/08/2026 10:58

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 18/08/2026 10:48

1. 4.5 — One-page budget exceeded: The Key Interactions gate carries all nine ER interaction bullets (QRS 582–621) alongside an eight-row Monitoring table (QRS 666–782); together these push the sheet past a single A4 page and require condensation.

Fixes 18/08/2026 10:48

1. 4.5 — Key Interactions parentheticals trimmed: Shortened the example-drug lists in all nine interaction items (e.g. “selegiline, rasagiline, safinamide” to “selegiline, rasagiline”; “warfarin, apixaban, clopidogrel, aspirin” to “warfarin, clopidogrel”) while keeping every ER bold label verbatim and every interaction present.
2. 4.5 — Monitoring rationales condensed: Tightened the “Why” text for markers 2, 3, 4 and 7 and dropped the redundant “No target stated;” prefix from the seated blood pressure target, reducing the eight-row table by several wrapped lines.
3. 4.5 — Qualitative and protocol text tightened: Cut the trailing explanatory clauses from qualitative items 2 and 5 and shortened action_1_sub to “Wild green oat preparation; at or below optimal for acute effect.”

Issues 18/08/2026 10:42

1. 12.3 — Evidence qualifier in benefits tier: Line 543 appends “(conflicted)” to the Medium benefit “Cognitive performance — attention, working memory and multitasking”; the tier label already encodes evidence strength, so the qualifier is redundant detail that section 12 requires be stripped.

Fixes 18/08/2026 10:42

1. 12.3 — Evidence qualifier in benefits tier: Removed the trailing “(conflicted)” from the Medium benefit, leaving “Cognitive performance — attention, working memory and multitasking”.