Audit: QRS - Maitake for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 19/08/2026 18:06 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 span traces to the ER: protocol doses to Therapeutic Protocol, time points to Practical Considerations, benefit/risk tiers to the ER headings, gates to Key Interactions & Contraindications, biomarker rows and qualitative items to Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success.
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 verbatim, e.g. marker_12_target “No established target exists; track the change from the individual’s own baseline”.
1.3	The QRS never strengthens an ER claim (e.g., “not formally studied” → “not required”) or softens one (e.g., “do not use during pregnancy” → “use with caution during pregnancy”).	🟢	“Pregnancy or breastfeeding” remains in the Contraindications gate; “Caution”/”Monitor”/”No known interaction” verdicts match the ER bullets one-for-one.
1.4	The QRS does not relabel an ER fact under a different decision category. A “Benefit-Modifying Factor” from ER section is not surfaced as a “Caution”; a “Risk-Modifying Factor” is not surfaced as a “Side Effect”; etc.	🟢	Benefit- and Risk-Modifying Factors are not surfaced anywhere; gate items come only from Key Interactions & Contraindications, tier items only from Expected Benefits and Potential Risks & Side Effects.
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 in the QRS.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	The only attributions used (“integrative-oncology protocols”, “manufacturer protocols”, “dose-escalation trial”, “myelodysplastic syndromes trial”) all appear in the ER for the same facts.

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.	🟢	Neutral, evidence-first register matching the ER, including its explicit hedging about industry funding and internal conflict.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Quantified targets and time windows are paired with plain-language framing in At-A-Glance and the Qualitative Assessment card.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is stated as observed evidence (“The only dose established for a healthy population…”) rather than as instruction.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	Gate items are noun phrases; the cadence line is descriptive; the footer disclaimer is unmodified.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No instances of “recommend”, “advise”, “you should”, or comparable directive verbs.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the document body.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms are spelled out where the ER spells them out (e.g., “international normalized ratio”, “angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors”).
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Benefit and risk tiers are reduced to semicolon-separated headings; interaction items to label plus one-word verdict.
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.	🟢	Optimal-range biomarker targets, a 12-marker panel, and supplement-stacking interactions all address 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.	🟢	Weight-based twice-daily extract dosing, 50 g daily culinary intake, and specialist-laboratory ergothioneine testing are retained.
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 mass-market “take one capsule daily” 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 and action_2_sub both flag that the evidence sits in ill populations and that only one dose is established for healthy adults.
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 appear; the header uses “Maitake for Health & Longevity”.
2.15	The document’s own voice uses formal clinical and scientific terminology, not colloquial or consumer-grade language (e.g., “oral medication” not “pill(s)”; “injection” not “shot”; “adverse event” not “bad reaction”). Direct quotes from sources are exempt.	🟢	Formal terminology throughout (“adverse effects”, “hypersensitivity pneumonitis”, “anticoagulant potentiation”); plain-language substitutions occur only in At-A-Glance, where item 7.4 requires them.

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 byte-identical to the template (lines 445, 490, 538, 571, 589, 655, 683, 687–689, 858).
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 12 and 6 instances respectively.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	A normalized diff against the template shows no change outside the metadata comment and the data-qrs-var span contents; website="evidence_review", website="audit", and website="full_review" spans are untouched.

4. Formatting

#	Description	Result	Comments
4.1	When the source ER section is empty, the QRS uses the ER’s own empty-state phrasing verbatim. Typical phrasings are “None documented in human trials to date” and “Not formally studied”	N/A	No source ER section mapped into the QRS is empty.
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.	🟢	All eleven Key Interactions labels and the three protocol labels (“Standardised extract dosing”, “Whole-mushroom culinary intake”, “Best time of day”) match the ER bold labels verbatim, including parenthetical drug lists.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Biomarker names and “Why Measure It?” text are carried verbatim from the ER table.
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” marker is correctly dropped.
4.5	The QRS is designed to render on one A4 page. Any section that has more content in the ER than fits the per-section budget is condensed by the LLM, not extended onto a second page.	🟢	Every section is condensed to the limit permitted by the stricter preservation rules — benefits and risks to bare tier headings, interactions to label plus verdict, contraindications to key facts.

---

5. Metadata

#	Description	Result	Comments
5.1	The metadata is placed inside a single HTML comment that is the first element after “<!doctype html>” and before any other comment, head, or body content.	🟢	Lines 2–14, immediately after <!doctype html> on line 1 and before the template comment on 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 --- on line 3, closing --- on line 13.
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.
5.4	All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading or trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless the value contains a colon, bracket, or leading special character that requires YAML quoting.	🟢	Only duration: "00:03" is quoted, and it contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: maitake_2026-0825-1703_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 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: 2026-0819-1757.
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.
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 qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	Line 9: qrs_filename: maitake_2026-0825-1703_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 &)	🟢	Line 22: “Maitake for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet”.
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	Line 417: “Maitake for Health & Longevity”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: “08/19/2026”, matching qrs_creation_date: 2026-0819-1757.
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 contains only the title and the template subline; the ER’s alternate-names line is 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 all three Conclusion paragraphs into four sentences: composition, strength of human signal, bidirectionality, harm profile.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	59 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Each clause maps to a distinct Conclusion sentence (lines 512–516 of the ER).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	Uses “fiber-like cell-wall sugars”, “a protective sulfur compound”, “a vitamin D building block”, “front-line immune cells”; no acronyms.
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	🟢	All eight items come from the ER’s “Populations who should avoid Maitake” list.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All eight ER avoidance populations are represented, one-for-one and in ER order.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Lines 574–584, eight <li> elements inside the 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.	🟢	Trailing clauses stripped, e.g. ER “mirroring the exclusion criteria of the current interventional trial” and “for whom no safety data exist at supplemental doses” are both removed.
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).	🟢	“(unless glucose monitored and doses supervised)”, “(leukaemia, lymphoma, myeloma) outside a clinical trial”, “within two weeks”, and “without access to international normalized ratio monitoring” 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.
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, not 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 eleven items come from the ER’s bulleted interaction list.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	Eleven of the ER’s twelve interaction bullets are carried; the immunosuppressants / checkpoint-inhibitor bullet is correctly excluded as it is an absolute contraindication already in the stop gate.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Lines 592–645, eleven <li> elements inside the 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.	🟢	Reduced to label plus verdict; ER trailing clauses such as “— additive effect” and all consequence/mitigation sentences 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 seven ER example-drug lists are preserved intact within the bold labels.
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.
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 twelve interactions and the section is correctly populated, not 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 the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Extract dose, whole-mushroom dose, and timing — the only three bullets that yield an executable instruction; the remaining bullets are competing-model commentary and modifier discussion.
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 at least 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 populated; values “3 mg/kg twice daily”, “50 g daily”, “1 hour before meals” and their subs all trace to ER lines 377, 379, 389, 393.

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	🟢	3, 12, and 18 weeks — the only three time-to-effect data points the ER reports (Practical Considerations, line 440).
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Two Medium-tier immune endpoints first, then the Low-tier cognitive endpoint.
11.3	If less that three distinct time-to-effect aspects are mentioned in the ER the unused sets are left empty and made invisible, not filled with placeholder text or empty-state phrasing.	N/A	The ER supplies three distinct time-to-effect aspects 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.	🟢	All nine spans populated with ER-derived content; the subs name the originating trial and the ER’s “Nothing measurable should be expected inside a month” 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 twelve items are the ER’s benefit subheadings, in ER order.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated (lines 540–564) with 1, 2, 3, and 6 items respectively, matching the ER tier counts.
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.	🟢	Reduced to bare headings; magnitudes, p-values, and trial descriptions are all dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in any benefits item.
12.5	If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing.	N/A	All four tiers carry items in the ER.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All ten items are the ER’s risk subheadings, in ER order.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated (lines 657–677) with 1, 3, 3, and 3 items respectively, matching the ER tier counts.
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.	🟢	Reduced to bare headings; incidence figures such as “4 of 18 evaluable patients (22%, p = 0.014)” are dropped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in any risks item.
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 tiers carry items in the ER.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Table rows are taken from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All twelve ER biomarkers present, with “Optimal Functional Range” and “Why Measure It?” carried verbatim into Target and Why.
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 848: baseline, 1 and 4 weeks, 12 weeks, then every 6 to 12 months — matching the ER narrative.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Taken from the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the laboratory panel” list.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six ER qualitative markers present and verbatim (lines 861–890).

Issues 19/08/2026 18:06

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.