Audit: QRS - Maca for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 13/09/2026 08:44 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	84
Failed	0
N/A	9
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.	🟢	Spot-checked all populated spans against the ER: protocol cells against ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets, time-to-effect against ER Practical Considerations and Benefits magnitudes, benefit/risk tiers against ER headings, all 8 monitoring rows and 6 qualitative markers verbatim from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success table and list.
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.	🟢	Cautious ER wording is carried through: “Screens the theoretical glucosinolate goitrogen concern” (marker_4_why) and “One unreplicated case of acute liver injury is attributed to maca” (marker_8_why) are verbatim.
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”).	🟢	All 5 contraindications stay in the ER’s “should avoid” register; “improve modestly” in at_a_glance matches the ER Conclusion’s “gains are small in absolute terms”.
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’s “Populations who should avoid Maca” list; Key Interactions only from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications bullets; no Benefit-Modifying Factors or Risk-Modifying Factors content is re-surfaced elsewhere.
1.5	PubMed IDs, study citations, expert names, clinical trial identifiers (NCT*), and brand names appear in the QRS only if they appear in the source ER for the same fact.	🟢	No PMIDs, NCT identifiers, author names or brand names anywhere in the QRS; the ER’s inline link in the glucose row was correctly stripped to plain text.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions of any kind are present.

2. Focus, Tone & Audience

#	Description	Result	Comments
2.1	The QRS follows the tone of the ER, which is determined by the ER’s own language, phrasing, and framing.	🟢	Flat, declarative, evidence-first register matching the ER throughout.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Targets and thresholds are given concretely while the framing stays neutral and actionable.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Statements are descriptive (“3,000 mg separated from placebo where 1,500 mg did not”), never instructions to a patient.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	Monitoring targets and cadence are presented as observed practice, not as orders; no imperative clinical directives.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No instances of “recommend”, “advise”, “should”, or “must” in document voice.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the rendered content.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms appear only where the ER’s own fact requires them (marker names, “glucosinolates”, “androgen receptor”); no gratuitous jargon.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Every list item is reduced to the key fact; ER magnitudes, mechanisms and citations are dropped.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — no direct address.
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-range targets, lot-quality framing and phenotype selection all assume a proactive optimizer.
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.	🟢	Weekly blood-pressure readings, an 8-marker blood panel and 12-week re-testing are presented without hedging about burden.
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.	🟢	Content depth (functional ranges tighter than conventional cutoffs, phenotype selection) is beyond 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.	🟢	The at_a_glance lede foregrounds what survives placebo control and that the residual risk is product quality — 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.	🟢	No occurrence of “anti-aging”; 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.	🟢	action_1_sub uses “oral”; no “by mouth”, “pill”, “shot” or “bad reaction” anywhere.

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 headings, gate headings, tier labels and the three table column headers match the template byte-for-byte.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 34 named template variables present; marker_#* expanded to 8 rows and qualitative_item# to 6 items as intended.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	A normalized structural diff against the template shows only the expected differences: repeated marker rows, repeated qualitative list items, the display: none on risks_high, and formatter line-wrapping. No CSS, structural or fixed-text changes.

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 mapped to a QRS field is empty; the one unpopulated tier (High risks) is governed by item 13.5 and is hidden rather than filled.
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_1/2/3 labels are the ER’s own bold labels “Standard dose”, “Time of day”, “Phenotype selection”; all 8 monitoring row labels are the ER Biomarker-column entries verbatim.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Protocol and monitoring labels are exact; time-to-effect labels are the ER benefit names, which section 11 allows to be derived.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji present; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” markers were correctly 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 carries only the items other checklist rules mandate, each reduced to the key fact with magnitudes, mechanisms and citations removed.

---

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 the doctype, ahead of every other element.
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 preceding title line is permitted.
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.	🟢	Contained entirely within the HTML comment; no element echoes it.
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; all other values are bare and trimmed.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	er_filename: maca_2026-0913-0524_Opus_ER.md at line 4.
5.6	Version of the QRS.md file used to create the document is stated as “qrs_prompt_version: [Version of QRS.md]”	🟢	qrs_prompt_version: 26.9.11, matching the guideline version.
5.7	Creation date and time of the document is stated as “qrs_creation_date: [YYYY-MMDD-HHMM]” (e.g., 2026-0501-1430)	🟢	qrs_creation_date: 2026-0913-0826, 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]”	🟢	qrs_creator_ai_nickname: Opus at line 7.
5.9	The nickname of the AI is just a single word model name without version, etc. (e.g., Opus, Sonnet, Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT)	🟢	“Opus” — single word, no version.
5.10	The full name of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_fullname: [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]”	🟢	qrs_creator_ai_fullname: Opus 5 at line 8.
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]”	🟢	qrs_filename: maca_2026-0913-0524_Opus_QRS.html, matching the file on disk.
5.13	All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading or trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless the value contains a colon, bracket, or leading special character that requires YAML quoting.	🟢	Re-verified across all nine keys; no stray whitespace or unnecessary quoting.

6. Page Title & Header

#	Description	Result	Comments
6.1	[page_title] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter followed by “ - Quick Reference Sheet” (e.g., “Intervention - Quick Reference Sheet”). The [canonical_topic] is HTML-entity-encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	“Maca for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet” matches the 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 &)	🟢	“Maca for Health & Longevity” at line 417.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	“09/13/2026” correctly derived from qrs_creation_date: 2026-0913-0826.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	“Opus 5” at line 425, matching the frontmatter.
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 carries only the title and the template’s standard subline; the ER’s “Also known as” line 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	🟢	Each clause maps to a sentence of the ER Conclusion (lines 503–505), ordered effect → magnitude → what fails → residual risk.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	Scripted word count returns exactly 60.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Root-food framing, hormone-independent desire effect, modest menopausal/erectile/urinary gains, null performance and fertility, and lead/adulteration/assay risk each trace to a separate Conclusion passage.
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; vocabulary stays at “libido”, “sex hormones”, “placebo control”, terms this audience uses unprompted.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial identifiers, author names, years or sample sizes.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers of any kind appear in the lede.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All 5 items come from that section’s “Populations who should avoid Maca” list (ER lines 340–344).
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All 5 ER avoid-populations are present, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Five discrete <li> elements at lines 571–575.
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.	🟢	Every ER em-dash rationale clause (“— safety data are absent…”, “— cell-culture data show…”) is stripped; only the key fact 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).	🟢	“(Child-Pugh Class B or C)”, the “above 4 ng/mL” threshold and the “under 18” age bound 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 its contraindication bullets.
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 five avoid-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 8 items trace to that section’s bullet list (ER lines 320–336).
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	8 of the ER’s 9 interaction bullets are carried; the ninth, “Anti-doping-tested competition”, is correctly omitted because it already appears as the contraindication “Athletes subject to anti-doping testing”.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eight discrete <li> elements at lines 583–595.
9.4	Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, no elaborations, no mechanistic rationale, no attributions, no citations, no study details. No content after an em-dash, en-dash, or hyphen-dash (e.g., “— dose reduction required”, “— reduced efficacy”) — these trailing clauses are stripped. Just the key fact.	🟢	The “Caution.”/”Monitor.” verdicts and all mechanistic rationale are dropped, and the ER’s “— tetracyclic and serotonin-raising” trailing clause on the antidepressant bullet is 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 five ER parenthetical drug lists are preserved in full.
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 parentheses contain plain comma-separated drug names only, with no ranking notation.
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 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 map to ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets (lines 366, 372, 374).
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Standard dose, time of day and phenotype selection are the three decisions a user must make before the first dose; the remaining ER bullets are background or population caveats.
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 well over three actionable 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 spans carry substantive ER-derived content; no placeholders remain.

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	🟢	Sexual desire, menopausal symptoms and erectile/urinary symptoms are the three onset windows the ER documents.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	All three are drawn from the ER’s High tier and follow its internal order: sexual desire, menopausal symptom burden, erectile/aging-male and urinary symptoms.
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	Three distinct time-to-effect aspects exist 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.	🟢	“Week 8”, “6–12 weeks” and “12 weeks” with their subs all trace to ER Benefits magnitudes and Practical Considerations line 427.
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 data, so the section is correctly retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	All four tiers reproduce the ER Expected Benefits sub-headings in order.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated at lines 542–561.
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 benefit heading alone; all Magnitude paragraphs and study detail are dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses 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.	N/A	All four benefit tiers carry items in the ER, so no tier needs hiding.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All entries reproduce the ER’s risk sub-headings in tier order.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present at lines 607–625.
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 risk heading alone; case-report detail and Magnitude paragraphs are dropped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses in any risk 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.	🟢	The ER states “No maca risk reaches this level” for High, and the risks_high span 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	🟢	Rows and cadence both come from ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success (lines 459–470).
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 8 ER table rows are present — blood lead, diastolic blood pressure, total testosterone, TSH, haemoglobin and ferritin, PSA, fasting glucose and HbA1c, ALT and AST — with targets reproduced 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.	🟢	Weekly-then-monthly blood pressure, 12-week bloods and 6–12-month follow-up, condensed faithfully from ER line 459.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Items come from the qualitative-marker list at ER lines 474–479.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 6 ER qualitative markers are present and reproduced verbatim.

Issues 13/09/2026 08:44

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 13/09/2026 08:37

1. 9.4 — Em-dash clause retained in interaction item: The first [caution_items] entry (QRS lines 584-585) reads “Antidepressants, tetracyclic and serotonin-raising (mianserin, mirtazapine, sertraline, escitalopram, fluoxetine)”, carrying the ER’s post-em-dash clause “— tetracyclic and serotonin-raising” (ER line 320) with the dash swapped for a comma instead of stripping it; the named drugs already identify the classes, so the clause is redundant detail.

Fixes 13/09/2026 08:37

1. 9.4 — Em-dash clause stripped from interaction item: Shortened the first [caution_items] entry from “Antidepressants, tetracyclic and serotonin-raising (mianserin, mirtazapine, sertraline, escitalopram, fluoxetine)” to “Antidepressants (mianserin, mirtazapine, sertraline, escitalopram, fluoxetine)”, removing the ER’s post-em-dash class descriptor while preserving the named example drugs required by item 9.5.

Issues 13/09/2026 08:31

1. 1.2 — Stimulant hedge dropped: [action_2_sub] (line 471) asserts “Mildly stimulating” as fact, while ER line 374 hedges it as “mildly stimulating in reported experience” and ER line 282 records that no controlled trial has measured sleep on maca.

Fixes 13/09/2026 08:31

1. 1.2 — Stimulant hedge restored: [action_2_sub] changed from “Mildly stimulating; evening dosing is the commonly cited cause of disturbed sleep.” to “Mildly stimulating in reported experience; evening dosing is the commonly cited cause of disturbed sleep.”, matching the ER’s cautious phrasing at ER line 374.