Audit: QRS - Kava for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 16/08/2026 23:05 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 span traces to ER text: protocol cells to ER Therapeutic Protocol (lines 371, 373, 381, 385, 391), time cells to line 430 and 458, benefit/risk tiers to the ER Expected Benefits and Potential Risks & Side Effects headings, gates to Key Interactions & Contraindications (lines 312–343), monitoring to the table at lines 462–470, qualitative items to lines 474–479.
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.	🟢	The ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” markers are carried through as “(conflicted)” on all four affected items (benefits_high, benefits_low, risks_high, risks_low); “theoretical infection risk” is preserved verbatim in marker_7_why.
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”).	🟢	Absolute contraindications from the ER (dopaminergic drugs, benzodiazepines, surgery window) remain in the Contraindications gate rather than being demoted to Key Interactions; no cautionary item is upgraded to a prohibition.
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.	🟢	Nothing from Benefit-Modifying Factors (lines 203–217) or Risk-Modifying Factors (lines 293–307) appears in the gates or the risk tiers; gates draw exclusively on Key Interactions & Contraindications.
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 contains no PMIDs, citations, author names, NCT identifiers, or brand names at all.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions of any kind appear in the QRS.

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.	🟢	The measured, disagreement-acknowledging register of the ER Conclusion is mirrored in at_a_glance (“a real but uneven record”, “signals are thinner”).
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Monitoring targets and dosing values give the data-driven spine; “Deliberate short use with liver testing changes the picture” supplies the empowering framing without overclaiming.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is stated as facts and ranges, not as instructions issued to a patient.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative clinical directives; the gates name populations and agents rather than telling anyone what to do.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No instances of “recommend”, “advise”, or “should” directed at a reader.
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 that remain (CYP2E1 substrates, Child-Pugh, cholestatic) are load-bearing decision content and are carried from the ER with its own glosses where the ER supplied them (“cholestatic (bile-flow blockage)”).
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Every tier is a single semicolon-separated line; gate items are noun phrases with no trailing rationale.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed by scan: no “you”, “your”, or “yours”.
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.	🟢	The sheet assumes a reader who will order a fasted liver panel, log nightly sleep, and track an anxiety score.
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.	🟢	The monitoring cadence (baseline, week 4, week 8, then every 8 weeks, plus unscheduled draws) presumes exactly that willingness.
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.	🟢	Functional-range targets tighter than conventional laboratory ranges and a nine-marker panel are not general-population content.
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 closes on precisely that distinction — “Deliberate short use with liver testing changes the picture” — mirroring the ER Conclusion line 507.
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.	🟢	“alanine aminotransferase”, “central nervous system depression”, “psychomotor effects”, “dermopathy” are used rather than consumer equivalents; the plainer wording in at_a_glance is required there by item 7.4.

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 440, 477, 519, 539, 557, 576, 595, 599–601, 714).
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	Full span-name comparison against the template: all 38 template names present, with marker_#_* expanded to markers 1–9 and qualitative_item_# expanded to items 1–6.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	A line-level diff against the template shows changes confined to the metadata block, page_title, and the checklist-addressed content spans; <span website="evidence_review">, <span website="audit">, and <span website="full_review"> are untouched, as are all CSS and structural markup.

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 and risk tier, both gate lists, the protocol, the monitoring table and the qualitative list are populated in the ER.
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.	🟢	action_1_label “Standard extract protocol”, action_2_label “Traditional aqueous protocol” and action_3_label “Single versus split dosing” reproduce the ER bold labels at lines 371, 373 and 385 exactly.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Marker names match the ER biomarker column verbatim, tier contents match the ER headings, and the protocol labels match the ER bold labels.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	Scan for emoji code points returns nothing; the ER’s tier emoji and “⚠️” markers are rendered as CSS colour plus the bold “High/Medium/Low/Speculative” labels and the word “(conflicted)”.
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 to headings or noun phrases rather than carried over at ER length; no section is spilled into additional structure and no extra page container exists.

---

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.	🟢	The comment opens at line 2, immediately after <!doctype html> at line 1, and closes at line 14 before any other markup.
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 --- at line 3, closing --- at line 13; the preamble text “QRS — Metadata (invisible, parsed by audit tooling)” sits before 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.	🟢	It is inside an HTML comment and none of its values are repeated in any rendered element.
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: "00:04" is quoted, and it contains a colon, so quoting is required; all other values are bare and untrimmed of nothing.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: kava_2026-0825-1918_Opus_ER.md, which is the ER under audit.
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 version badge of QRS.md.
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: 2026-0816-2252, in the required 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” is a single word with no version or qualifier.
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” is nickname plus version number with no trailing qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	Line 9: qrs_filename: kava_2026-0825-1918_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; only the colon-bearing duration carries quotes.

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: Kava 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: Kava for Health & Longevity.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: 08/16/2026, the correct reformatting of 2026-0816-2252.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	Line 425: Opus 5, matching the frontmatter value.
6.5	No additional header content appears: no badge, version stamp, AKA / alternate names line, source-AI attribution, audit date, or QRS variant marker.	🟢	The header holds only the title and the template subline; the ER’s “Also known as” list (line 31) is correctly absent.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	All four sentences map onto the ER Conclusion (lines 505–507), ending on the execution-relevant distinction between deliberate monitored use and population averages.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	53 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	“real but uneven record” and “does not appear to dull attention or memory” from line 505; “Signals for sleep, for low mood … are thinner” from line 505; “the plant part and the solvent used clearly matter” and “pairing kava with alcohol, sedatives” from line 507; “uses kava deliberately and briefly” from line 507.
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “root drink”, “brief calming”, “liver testing”, “plant part”, “extraction method” are all everyday terms a non-specialist would use unprompted.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial names, years, sample sizes or p-values appear.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers of any kind appear in the paragraph.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All eleven items trace to that section: ten to the “Populations who should avoid Kava” list (lines 334–343) and one to the “Dopaminergic drugs” bullet marked “Absolute contraindication” (line 322).
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	Every ER population bullet is represented, and the ER’s three “Absolute contraindication” interaction bullets are covered — benzodiazepines and surgery via the population bullets, dopaminergic drugs as its own item.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Lines 542–552: eleven discrete <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.	🟢	No dashes introduce trailing clauses; the ER’s trailing explanations are stripped, e.g. “the contraindication carried on the former German product label” (line 343) and “(a severity grade for cirrhosis)” (line 334).
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 A–C”, “above twice the upper limit of normal”, “above 14 standard drinks weekly”, “within 14 days”, “under 18” and the levodopa/pramipexole/ropinirole drug list 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’s Key Interactions & Contraindications section uses no ranking notation inside parentheses; its parentheticals are plain drug lists.
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 section is populated, and the ER does identify such populations, so the emptiness condition is correctly not exercised.
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 seven items come from the bullet list at lines 314–328.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	The ER’s seven non-absolute interaction bullets are all present; the three absolute-contraindication bullets (benzodiazepines, dopaminergic drugs, surgery and anesthesia) are correctly excluded and appear in the Contraindications gate instead.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Lines 560–566: seven discrete <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.	🟢	Each item is reduced to the ER’s bold label plus its drug list; the mechanistic and mitigation sentences (“Additive sedation, respiratory depression risk…”, “Monthly liver-enzyme monitoring applies…”) are stripped.
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 six ER example-drug lists are carried through in full and verbatim, including the seven-agent sedative-supplement list.
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 this section.
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 section is populated, and the ER identifies numerous such interactions, so the emptiness condition is correctly not exercised.
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 the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets at lines 371, 373, 381, 385 and 391.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	The two dose regimens the ER names as the evidenced starting points, plus the dosing schedule, are the three execution-critical bullets; the competing-approach and unvalidated-genetics bullets are correctly omitted.
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 implementation 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 carry substantive ER-derived content; the age adjustment in action_1_sub matches line 391 and the timing detail in action_3_sub matches line 381.

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 onset, the interval over which rating-scale separation emerged, and the minimum course length before judging — the three distinct horizons stated at ER lines 430 and 458.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Cells 1 and 2 both attach to the High-tier benefit (short-term anxiety reduction), ordered from acute to cumulative; cell 3 attaches to the combined anxiety and Low-tier sleep endpoints.
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 provides three or more distinct time-to-effect aspects 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.	🟢	“60 to 90 minutes”, “Week 1 to week 4” and “At least 4 weeks” all come from ER line 430; the third sub-cell restates the week-4 review point of line 458.
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 at line 430, so the section is correctly retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	All seven listed benefits correspond one-to-one with the ER’s seven Expected Benefits sub-headings (lines 156–198).
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans are present and populated at lines 521–532, each on its own tier.
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 the ER sub-heading alone; no Magnitude figures (9.69 points, 1.26-fold, p-values) or narrative text is carried across.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No ER parenthetical survives; the only parentheses used are “(conflicted)”, the emoji-free rendering of the ER’s own “⚠️ Conflicted” heading marker required by items 1.2 and 4.4.
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 items, so no span needs hiding.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All ten listed risks correspond one-to-one with the ER’s ten Potential Risks & Side Effects sub-headings (lines 226–288).
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans are present and populated at lines 578–589.
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 the ER sub-heading alone; the Magnitude blocks (14 documented cases, p-values, relative risk 2.50) are entirely absent.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No ER parenthetical survives; the only parentheses used are “(conflicted)”, the emoji-free rendering of the ER’s own “⚠️ Conflicted” heading marker required by items 1.2 and 4.4.
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 items, so no span needs hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	The table and cadence derive from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success section (lines 458–470).
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All nine ER table rows are present with matching names and functional ranges: alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-glutamyl transferase, alkaline phosphatase, total bilirubin, albumin, lymphocyte count, anxiety rating score, resting heart rate.
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 708 reproduces the full cadence of ER line 458: fasted baseline draw, week 4, week 8 or end of course, every 8 weeks thereafter, unscheduled draw on symptoms, plus anxiety and sleep scores at week 4.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All six items come from the “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the laboratory panel” list at ER lines 474–479.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six ER qualitative markers are present in order: sleep onset and awakenings, daytime alertness, morning grogginess, skin condition, appetite and weight, and subjective ease in previously provoking situations.

Issues 16/08/2026 23:05

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 16/08/2026 22:58

1. 4.5 — Sheet overruns one A4 page: The combined length of the Contraindications gate (11 items, lines 542–552), the Monitoring table (9 rows with long “Why” strings, lines 605–703), the Qualitative Assessment (6 multi-line entries, lines 716–734) and the At-A-Glance paragraph pushes the rendered sheet to roughly twice the height available on a 297mm page, rather than being condensed to the per-section budget.

Fixes 16/08/2026 22:58

1. 4.5 — Contraindications gate condensed: Rewrote the four longest stop items to shed filler while keeping every qualifier — “Any chronic liver disease, including hepatitis B or C, cirrhosis (Child-Pugh Class A through C) and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease” became “Chronic liver disease (hepatitis B or C, cirrhosis Child-Pugh A–C, fatty liver)”, and the prior-injury, alcohol and pregnancy items were tightened the same way.
2. 4.5 — Monitoring “Why” column tightened: Trimmed redundant words from the marker_2, marker_4, marker_5, marker_7 and marker_9 rationales (e.g. “Detects the cholestatic (bile-flow blockage) injury pattern seen in several kava case reports” → “…seen in kava case reports”), removing a wrapped line from several table rows.
3. 4.5 — Monitoring targets and cadence shortened: Reduced marker_8_target to “Below 5 on the 7-item anxiety questionnaire”, marker_9_target to “No kava-specific target; tracked as change from own baseline”, and recast monitoring_cadence more compactly without dropping any scheduled draw or warning sign.
4. 4.5 — Protocol and qualitative entries compacted: Shortened action_1_sub, action_3_sub, qualitative_item_2 and qualitative_item_6 by removing redundant wording, with no ER-sourced fact dropped.