Audit: QRS - Luteolin for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 15/09/2026 05:01 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 93
Passed 85
Failed 0
N/A 8
Pass Rate 100.00%
  • Total = Passed + Failed + N/A
  • Pass Rate = Passed / (Passed + Failed) × 100
  • N/A items are excluded from the pass rate calculation

1. General Rules

# Description Result Comments
1.1 Every claim, magnitude, label, recommendation, and statement in the QRS is literally supported by content in the source ER. 🟢 All protocol, time-to-effect, benefit, risk, contraindication, interaction, biomarker and qualitative entries trace to ER lines 319–358, 382–406, 445, 155–231, 265–299, 477–494.
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. 🟢 time_3_sub keeps “but rest on uncontrolled observation” (ER line 445); at_a_glance keeps “human evidence thinner” and “Safety looks favorable” (ER lines 522, 524).
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”). 🟢 Contraindications remain contraindications; interactions remain interactions; no hedge is removed or added.
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 “Populations who should avoid Luteolin”; risks only from Potential Risks & Side Effects; no Benefit-/Risk-Modifying Factor content is surfaced.
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 appear anywhere in the QRS.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 Only ER-generic references (“the open-label trial”, “the smell-recovery trials”, “the cardiometabolic trial”) are used.

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, non-promotional register carried over from the ER Conclusion and Protocol sections.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Protocol, monitoring targets and qualitative markers give actionable structure while the lede states the evidence limits plainly.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 Values are stated descriptively (“Doses above 200 mg are commonly split…”, “Morning with breakfast”), not as orders.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 No imperative clinical instruction; the cadence line reports the ER’s “practical cadence” rather than prescribing one.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 No occurrences of “recommended”, “should”, “advised” 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 only where they are the decision gate itself (CYP3A4, carboxylesterase 1, Child-Pugh class), matching ER usage.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Every gate, benefit and risk entry is a bare label with no elaboration.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 Confirmed by full-text scan for “you”/”your”; none present.
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. 🟢 Nine-marker monitoring panel, functional (not conventional) reference ranges and a 15-item interaction gate presuppose a proactive, risk-aware reader.
2.11 The target audience is willing to employ lifestyle and behavioral changes as well as follow protocols that may be inconvenient, costly, or require effort. 🟢 Baseline plus three-month and six-month lab panels and split dosing are presented without any effort caveat.
2.12 The document is NOT written for the general population, who are unwilling to employ lifestyle and behavioral changes or follow protocols that may be inconvenient, costly, or require effort. 🟢 No simplification to a general-population “just take one capsule” framing.
2.13 Framing, takeaways, and risk/benefit weighting throughout the document reflect this audience, including where an intervention’s signal for the average person differs from its signal for this audience. 🟢 The lede foregrounds the combination-product confound and seller-funded evidence — the weighting this audience needs.
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)”; “oral” / “administered orally” not “taken by mouth” / “given by mouth”; “injection” not “shot”; “adverse event” not “bad reaction”). This holds on EVERY surface, including the QRS lede — the stricter plain-language bar (see 2.7) does not license lay phrasing for route of administration. Direct quotes from sources are exempt. 🟢 Route and form use “purified luteolin, taken with food” and “capsules” as in the ER; the lede phrase “mopping up free radicals” is carried verbatim from ER line 520.

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, gate labels, tier labels and table headers match the template byte-for-byte (lines 440, 477, 519, 537, 552, 579, 594, 598–600, 713).
3.2 All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All 34 template variables present; the repeatable marker_#* and qualitative_item# spans are expanded to 9 and 6 instances respectively.
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 Full diff against the template shows changes confined to variable content; head, CSS, structural markup, section comments and footer 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” N/A No source ER section is empty; the unpopulated benefit/risk tiers are governed by 12.5 and 13.5 instead.
4.2 Where the ER presents a bulleted item as “Label: content”, the QRS uses the ER’s bold label verbatim as the cell or row label. 🟢 Protocol labels (“Standard supplement dose”, “Best time of day”, “Single versus split dosing”) and 13 of 15 interaction labels are verbatim; the two trimmed labels are covered by the 9.2 and 9.5 allowances.
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 No invented labels; all derive from ER bold labels or ER benefit/risk headings.
4.4 The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels. 🟢 Full-text scan finds no emoji; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” and “⭕️ Not Central” markers are stripped.
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 bare labels with no prose; the remaining volume is the completeness floor set by 8.2, 9.2, 12.x, 13.x, 14.2 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 comment opens immediately after the doctype on line 1.
5.2 Inside that HTML comment the YAML block is delimited by a line “—” opening and a line “—” closing. Text before the opening “—” is permitted but is not parsed as YAML. 🟢 Opening “—” line 3, closing “—” line 13, preceded by the permitted title text 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. 🟢 Enclosed in an HTML comment; no metadata value is repeated in head or body markup.
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. 🟢 All values trimmed; only duration: "00:03" is quoted, correctly so because it contains a colon.
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 Line 4: er_filename: luteolin_2026-0913-0514_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: 26.9.11, 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: 2026-0915-0446, 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 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” — nickname plus version, no additional qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 Line 9 matches the file on disk: luteolin_2026-0913-0514_Opus_QRS.html.
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 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., &amp; for &) 🟢 Line 22: “Luteolin 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., &amp; for &) 🟢 Line 417: “Luteolin for Health & Longevity”.
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 Line 421: 09/15/2026, correctly derived from qrs_creation_date: 2026-0915-0446.
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 block (lines 415–428) is structurally identical to the template; no alternate-names line despite the ER carrying five.

7. At-A-Glance Section

# Description Result Comments
7.1 [at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section 🟢 Compresses all four Conclusion paragraphs (ER lines 520–526) into the decision-relevant core: mechanism, evidence depth, combination confound, safety, funding bias.
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 55 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Sentence 1 → ER line 520; sentence 2 → lines 520/522; sentence 3 → line 522 verbatim; sentence 4 → line 524; sentence 5 → line 526.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 No acronyms; “inflammatory signaling”, “free radicals” and “controlled trial” are the ER’s own plain-language terms.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) 🟢 No trial name, year, sample size or p-value 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 🟢 Sourced from the “Populations who should avoid Luteolin” list, ER lines 349–358.
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 All 8 ER avoid-items are present, in ER order, with none added.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Eight <li> elements, lines 540–547.
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 pregnancy rationale (“no human safety data, and the aromatase and thyroid signals…”) and the hepatic rationale (“where conjugation capacity is reduced”) are both stripped; no dash-trailing clause 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). 🟢 TSH thresholds (4.5 / 0.4 mIU/L), Child-Pugh Class B or C, the 14-day surgical window and the 12-month stent window are all retained.
8.6 When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>” for severity ordering) that depends on an explanatory phrase to interpret, normalize the items to a plain comma-separated list rather than carrying through the bare symbol. N/A The ER uses no ranking notation in the contraindication list.
8.7 The section is left empty ONLY IF the ER’s Key Interactions & Contraindications section identifies no population, condition, or scenario for which the intervention should be avoided, deferred, or used only under specialist supervision. 🟢 The ER names eight 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 🟢 Sourced from the fifteen bold-labelled interaction bullets, ER lines 319–347.
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 All 15 ER interaction bullets are represented; the aromatase-inhibitor half of the ER line 329 bullet is correctly excluded because it is already a contraindication (QRS line 543).
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Fifteen <li> elements, lines 555–569.
9.4 Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, no elaborations, no mechanistic rationale, no attributions, no citations, no study details. No content after an em-dash, en-dash, or hyphen-dash (e.g., “— dose reduction required”, “— reduced efficacy”) — these trailing clauses are stripped. Just the key fact. 🟢 Every “Caution.”/”Monitor.” verdict and every mitigation sentence is stripped; only the labelled entity plus its drug list survives.
9.5 Parenthetical qualifiers from the ER bullet — example drug lists, time windows, severity classes, threshold values, clinical staging — ARE preserved as part of the item, kept as concise as possible (shortened or trimmed where needed to fit the one-page budget, but never dropped entirely). 🟢 All named example-drug lists are retained; only the explanatory gloss “agents that clear senescent cells:” is trimmed from the senolytic entry, within the allowance.
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 in the interaction bullets.
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 fifteen 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 action sets derive from Therapeutic Protocol, ER lines 382–406.
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Dose, timing and dosing frequency — the three decisions a reader must make before taking the compound.
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 sixteen bullets; 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; action_1_sub additionally carries the over-65 range from ER line 406, which sits in the same Protocol section.

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 🟢 Smell recovery, cardiometabolic markers and histamine-related symptoms — exactly the three horizons the ER gives at line 445.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Smell recovery (Medium) → cardiometabolic markers (Medium) → histamine-driven symptoms (Speculative), matching the ER’s own benefit tiering.
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 distinct time-to-effect aspects; 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; each sub is near-verbatim from ER line 445, including the “uncontrolled observation” caveat.
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 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 entries map one-to-one onto ER benefit headings, lines 149–231.
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four spans present at lines 521–530.
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 heading alone; every Magnitude paragraph is omitted.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content survives in any benefit tier.
12.5 If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing. 🟢 ER states no benefit reaches High (line 151); benefits_high is emptied and set to style="display: none" at line 521.

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 Both populated tiers map onto ER risk headings, lines 255–299.
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four spans present at lines 581–588.
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 heading alone; the 54% frequency and the 1–8 week duration are omitted as required.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content survives in either populated tier.
13.5 If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing. 🟢 ER states no risk reaches High or Medium (lines 257, 261); both spans are emptied and set to style="display: none" at lines 581–582.

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Sourced from Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success, ER lines 471–485.
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All nine ER table rows appear as marker_1 through marker_9, in ER order, with targets and rationales intact.
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 707 carries the baseline / three-month / six-month / annual cadence from ER lines 471 and 473.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Sourced from the qualitative-marker list at ER lines 489–494.
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All six ER qualitative markers appear verbatim as qualitative_item_1 through qualitative_item_6.

Issues 15/09/2026 05:01

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 15/09/2026 04:52

  1. 12.3 / 12.4 — Parenthetical qualifier in Benefits: The Medium benefits item at line 523 reads “Recovery of smell after viral olfactory loss (conflicted)”, carrying the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” flag through as a parenthetical qualifier, which items 12.3 and 12.4 require to be stripped; the equivalent “⭕️ Not Central to Health & Longevity” flag on the autism item was correctly dropped.

Fixes 15/09/2026 04:52

  1. 12.3 / 12.4 — Parenthetical qualifier in Benefits: Removed “(conflicted)” from the first Medium benefits item, changing it from “Recovery of smell after viral olfactory loss (conflicted)” to “Recovery of smell after viral olfactory loss”.