Audit: QRS - Livagen for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 01/09/2026 03:14 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	87
Failed	0
N/A	6
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.	🟢	All protocol values (10–20 day course 2–3× yearly; 1–2 capsules 10–30 days; 1–2 mg SC 10–20 days), all 10 biomarker ranges, all 8 contraindications, all 7 interactions and both time-to-effect cells trace to ER lines 291–295, 344, 374–383 and 246–269.
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.	🟢	“Unknown”, “No human study has measured any outcome on any timescale”, “Offers no basis for predicting a perceptible human effect”, “Risks are unmeasured, not absent” all mirror ER lines 344 and 416.
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”).	🟢	Evidence tiers are preserved exactly: all six benefits remain Speculative, the single Low risk stays Low, and High/Medium remain unpopulated as in the ER.
1.4	The QRS does not relabel an ER fact under a different decision category. A “Benefit-Modifying Factor” from ER section is not surfaced as a “Caution”; a “Risk-Modifying Factor” is not surfaced as a “Side Effect”; etc.	🟢	Contraindications come only from the ER “Populations who should avoid Livagen” list; Key Interactions only from the ER interaction bullets; no Benefit- or Risk-Modifying Factor is carried into 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.	🟢	No PMIDs, no NCT identifiers, no author or expert names, and no brand names appear anywhere in the QRS.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No institution, author, vendor or organisation is named 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, non-promotional register of the ER Conclusion is carried through, including “An unresolved question, not a supported choice”.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Numeric ranges and evidence tiers are given without hedging or persuasion, leaving the decision with the reader.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is stated descriptively (“Research-vendor material supplied as 20 mg freeze-dried vials”), not as instruction.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative directed at the reader; the monitoring cadence and contraindications are reported as ER findings.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No occurrence of recommend/advise/should in the document’s own voice.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	Verified: no second-person pronouns anywhere in the body.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms carry the ER’s own plain-language handling; “chromatin” is rendered as “packed genetic material” in At-A-Glance.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Benefit and risk tiers are collapsed to semicolon-separated headings; contraindications carry no rationale.
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.	🟢	Functional biomarker ranges, sourcing-quality gate and cycling schedule address a proactive optimiser.
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.	🟢	A 10-biomarker panel with baseline plus four follow-up timepoints and third-party documentation requirements assume 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.	🟢	Epigenetic age acceleration and subcutaneous self-administration are outside general-population 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.	🟢	At-A-Glance names the unmeasured-risk and unregulated-supply asymmetry, the decisive consideration 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.	🟢	Verified: “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.	🟢	“capsules”, “subcutaneous”, “Complete blood count with differential”, “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory”; no colloquial substitutes found.

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 headings match the template byte-for-byte (lines 445, 486, 532, 551, 566, 594, 614, 618–620, 773); populated tier labels “Low: “ and “Speculative: “ are unchanged.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 34 template variables present; the repeatable marker_#* and qualitative_item# patterns are expanded to 10 and 6 instances respectively.
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; the three website= spans, the CSS block, and the footer disclaimer are identical.

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”	🟢	No QRS field required empty-state phrasing; the unpopulated benefit and risk tiers are governed by items 12.5 and 13.5, which mandate display:none 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.	🟢	“Cyclical short-course approach”, “Oral route” and “Injected route” are the ER’s bold labels verbatim; monitoring row labels match the ER biomarker column exactly.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Time-to-effect cell labels are drawn from the ER’s own wording (“Unknown in humans”, “The cell and animal work”) as required by item 11.1’s decomposition of the single ER bullet.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	Verified: no emoji present; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” marker on the chromatin benefit 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 discretionary section is condensed to its minimum: tiers collapsed to one line each, contraindications stripped of glosses, qualitative rationale removed. Marker, contraindication, interaction and qualitative counts are fixed by items 14.2, 8.2, 9.2 and 15.2.

---

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; the first and only element preceding the template comment at line 16.
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 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.	🟢	Fully 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, correctly, because it contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: livagen_2026-0831-2351_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: 2026-0901-0308, 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” 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 with no context-window or build qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	Line 9: qrs_filename: livagen_2026-0831-2351_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, including the tooling-added git_user and git_issue; 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: “Livagen for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet”; matches 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: “Livagen for Health & Longevity”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: “09/01/2026”, the correct reformatting of 2026-0901-0308.
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” line (KEDA, Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala, Lyvagen) was correctly not carried over.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Compresses ER lines 414–418 into origin, evidence ceiling, risk status, supply route and the decision verdict.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	58 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Each of the five sentences maps to a distinct Conclusion passage: line 414 (origin and mechanism), 414 (old donors/old rats, no human outcome), 416 (risks unmeasured), 416 (unregulated sellers), 418 (unresolved question).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “heterochromatin”/”chromatin” is rendered as “the packed genetic material of ageing cells”.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No study, author, year or sample size appears.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numeric result of any kind.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All eight items come from the “Populations who should avoid Livagen” list at ER lines 262–269.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All eight ER populations are represented, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Lines 554–561: eight discrete <li> elements.
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 leading “Anyone with” phrasing and the explanatory glosses (“meaning moderate or severe loss of liver function”, “a measure of filtering capacity”) are stripped; no dashes remain.
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).	🟢	“within 5 years”, “(Child-Pugh Class B or C)”, “stage 4 or worse (filtration rate below 30 mL/min/1.73 m²)” and “under 18 years of age” 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 this section.
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 eight such populations, so 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 seven items come from the interaction bullets at ER lines 246–258.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All seven ER interaction bullets are present; none duplicates a contraindication, which lists populations rather than co-administered agents.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Lines 569–584: seven discrete <li> elements.
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.	🟢	Severity words, mechanism sentences and every “Mitigation:” clause are stripped; the ER’s category prefixes before em-dashes (“Over-the-counter medications —”, “Supplement interactions —”) are removed and only the substance retained.
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 named-drug list is retained: (morphine, oxycodone, buprenorphine, naltrexone), (sitagliptin, linagliptin, saxagliptin), (tacrolimus, ciclosporin, mycophenolate, prednisone), (ibuprofen, naproxen), (Epitalon, Vilon, Cortagen), (milk thistle silymarin, N-acetylcysteine, tauroursodeoxycholic acid).
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 ER names seven interactions, so the section is correctly populated rather than empty.
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 action cells derive from ER Therapeutic Protocol lines 291–295.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Course structure, oral route and injected route are the only three bullets that specify what to actually do; the remaining bullets cover timing conventions, pharmacokinetics and modifiers.
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 mentions three or more actionable aspects; 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 spans carry ER-sourced content; labels are the ER’s bold labels and values carry the ER’s dose and duration figures.

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	🟢	The ER supplies exactly two time-to-effect aspects (ER line 344); both are covered and the third set is handled under item 11.3.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	The human-relevant statement precedes the preclinical one, matching the ER’s own ordering within the “Time to effect” bullet.
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.	🟢	Lines 516–526: the third pcell carries style="display: none" and all three spans are empty, with no placeholder text.
11.4	All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER.	🟢	Both used sets restate ER line 344 without addition: “Unknown” / “No human study has measured any outcome on any timescale” and “1–14 days of exposure” / “Offers no basis for predicting a perceptible human effect”.
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 six entries are the ER’s #### benefit headings from lines 146–168.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present at lines 534–544.
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 six benefit headings appear, semicolon-separated; every supporting paragraph, PMID link and effect figure is dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parenthetical content remains; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” annotation on the chromatin benefit is also removed.
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, benefits_medium and benefits_low each carry style="display: none" with empty content; the ER’s “No benefit reaches High/Medium” sentences were correctly not carried over.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All six entries are the ER’s #### risk headings from lines 198–224.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present at lines 596–608.
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.	🟢	Only headings appear; the ER’s “Magnitude:” paragraph and the 12.0%/2.8% sister-chromatid figures are omitted.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	The ER’s parenthetical gloss “(a marker of DNA strand breakage and repair)” and the 2026 narrative-review citation are both stripped.
13.5	If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing.	🟢	risks_high and risks_medium carry style="display: none" with empty content; risks_low and risks_speculative are populated.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Rows and cadence derive from ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success, lines 368–383.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 10 ER table rows are present in ER order: ALT, AST, GGT, ALP, Total bilirubin, Albumin, hs-CRP, Complete blood count with differential, Ferritin, Epigenetic age acceleration; every target range matches the ER 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 762–767 reproduce ER lines 368 and 370: baseline, 2–4 weeks post-course, 3 months, then 6–12 monthly, with the inflammatory/iron and epigenetic-age qualifiers.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All six entries come from the qualitative marker list at ER lines 387–392.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six are present and in ER order: digestive comfort, energy, sleep continuity, cognitive clarity, injection-site appearance, exercise recovery.

Issues 01/09/2026 03:14

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.