Audit: QRS - Matcha for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 03/09/2026 04:01 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 93
Passed 83
Failed 0
N/A 10
Pass Rate 100.00%
  • Total = Passed + Failed + N/A
  • Pass Rate = Passed / (Passed + Failed) × 100
  • N/A items are excluded from the pass rate calculation

1. General Rules

# Description Result Comments
1.1 Every claim, magnitude, label, recommendation, and statement in the QRS is literally supported by content in the source ER. 🟢 Every populated span traces to a specific ER passage: at-a-glance to Conclusion; action cells to Therapeutic Protocol; time cells to the Practical Considerations “Time to effect” bullet; benefit/risk tiers to the ER H4 headings; gates to Key Interactions & Contraindications; monitoring rows and cadence 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. 🟢 “cause unproven” and “rest on small, short studies” mirror the ER’s own hedges (“the people who drink tea differ in many other ways”; “rest on small, short studies”).
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”). 🟢 Bortezomib remains an absolute gate under Contraindications; the pregnancy caffeine ceiling and the ferritin/anaemia gate keep the ER’s thresholds intact.
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 Matcha” list plus the bortezomib absolute contraindication; no Risk-Modifying Factors or Benefit-Modifying Factors entry is surfaced as a risk or 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. 🟢 The QRS carries no PMIDs, citations, author names, NCT identifiers or brand names; the drug names present (nadolol, celiprolol, atenolol, atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, digoxin, nintedanib, erlotinib, sunitinib, warfarin, sildenafil, bortezomib) are all named in the ER for the same interactions.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 No attribution of any kind is 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. 🟢 The sober, deflationary register of the ER Conclusion (“a modest, honestly small measurable return — not a lever”) is carried into the at-a-glance verbatim in spirit and wording.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Quantified gates, protocol values and biomarker targets supply the data-driven, empowering layer; language stays plain and non-alarmist.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 No imperatives anywhere; every cell states an observed fact or a measured range.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 Contraindications are stated as populations and conditions, not as instructions; monitoring targets are presented as ranges.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 The only evaluative wording, “Split dosing preferable above 2 g”, is lifted verbatim from the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullet “split dosing is preferable above 2 g”.
2.6 The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance 🟢 No second-person pronoun occurs anywhere in the document.
2.7 The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon 🟢 Technical terms are confined to the decision gates and biomarker table, where they are load-bearing; the at-a-glance and qualitative list are wholly plain.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Every gate and tier item is a bare label; explanations, mechanisms and effect sizes are stripped throughout.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 Confirmed by a full-document scan for “you”/”your”/”we”/”our” — no matches.
2.10 The target audience is health- and longevity-oriented adults who are risk-aware, proactive, and actively seeking to optimize health or apply the intervention under review. 🟢 The ten-marker monitoring table and the four-hour/two-hour separation gates address exactly this 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. 🟢 Split dosing six hours apart, sifting and whisking, and dose separation from medications and iron are presented without hedging about inconvenience.
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 assumes access to lipid panels, ApoB, ferritin and blood lead testing — not 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 closing at-a-glance clause “For anyone already doing the basics well, a modest return, not a lever” makes exactly this distinction.
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” or “antiaging”; 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. 🟢 Register is clinical throughout (“alanine aminotransferase”, “non-heme iron”, “arrhythmia”); the few everyday words in the qualitative list are reproduced verbatim from the ER’s own qualitative-marker bullets.

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 headings, tier labels and the three table column headers match the template byte for byte (lines 440, 477, 519, 539, 553, 575, 594, 598–600, 724).
3.2 All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All 34 template variables are present; the repeatable marker_#_* and qualitative_item_# placeholders are correctly instantiated as marker_1..10_* and qualitative_item_1..6.
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 A full diff against the template shows changes only inside data-qrs-var spans; the website="evidence_review", website="audit" and website="full_review" spans, the stylesheet link and the footer disclaimer 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 — all four benefit tiers, all four risk tiers, the interactions/contraindications list, the protocol and the monitoring section are populated.
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. 🟢 “Evidence-anchored daily dose”, “Standard preparation (usucha)” and “Best time of day” reproduce the ER Therapeutic Protocol bold labels verbatim; the interaction items reproduce the ER bold labels with only the em-dash severity suffix removed as required by 9.4.
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Benefit and risk items are the ER’s H4 headings verbatim; marker names are the ER biomarker-table entries verbatim; the three time-to-effect labels use the ER’s own noun phrases from the “Time to effect” bullet.
4.4 The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels. 🟢 Scan returns zero emoji; the ER’s 🟩/🟥/🟨 tier markers and its “⚠️ Conflicted” flags were correctly stripped. Tiering is carried by the CSS palette and the bold tier labels.
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. 🟢 The template’s A4 print rules are intact and every section is condensed to its floor — bare labels for benefits, risks and gates, trailing clauses stripped from the qualitative markers, and no explanatory prose added anywhere.

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: a single HTML comment immediately follows <!doctype html> on line 1, ahead of all other content.
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 and closing --- on line 13; the preceding “QRS — Metadata (invisible, parsed by audit tooling)” text sits before the opener as 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. 🟢 The block is an HTML comment and no metadata value is repeated in the head, body 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. 🟢 All nine values are trimmed and unquoted except duration: "00:03", which contains a colon and therefore requires quoting.
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 Line 4: er_filename: matcha_2026-0903-0224_Opus_ER.md, matching the ER’s own filename frontmatter value.
5.6 Version of the QRS.md file used to create the document is stated as “qrs_prompt_version: [Version of QRS.md]” 🟢 Line 5: qrs_prompt_version: 26.7.02, matching the version badge at the top of QRS.md.
5.7 Creation date and time of the document is stated as “qrs_creation_date: [YYYY-MMDD-HHMM]” (e.g., 2026-0501-1430) 🟢 Line 6: qrs_creation_date: 2026-0903-0338, in the required YYYY-MMDD-HHMM form.
5.8 The nickname of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_nickname: [qrs_creator_ai_nickname]” 🟢 Line 7: qrs_creator_ai_nickname: Opus.
5.9 The nickname of the AI is just a single word model name without version, etc. (e.g., Opus, Sonnet, Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT) 🟢 “Opus” is a single word with no version or qualifier.
5.10 The full name of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_fullname: [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]” 🟢 Line 8: qrs_creator_ai_fullname: Opus 5.
5.11 The full name of the AI consists of the [qrs_creator_ai_nickname] and the model version number and no additional qualifier (e.g., Opus 4.6, Sonnet 3.2, Grok 4.5, Gemini 3.1, ChatGPT 5.4) 🟢 “Opus 5” is nickname plus version number with no trailing qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 Line 9: qrs_filename: matcha_2026-0903-0224_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: no stray whitespace and no unnecessary quoting on any of the nine keys.

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: Matcha for Health &amp; Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet, matching the ER canonical_topic with the ampersand correctly 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: Matcha for Health &amp; Longevity.
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 Line 421: 09/03/2026, the correct MM/DD/YYYY rendering of qrs_creation_date: 2026-0903-0338.
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 and its alternate names were 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 🟢 All five clauses map one-to-one onto the four paragraphs of the ER Conclusion, in the same order.
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 Counted programmatically: exactly 60 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 “swallowed rather than steeped … whatever the leaf absorbed from the soil”; “small, reliable reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure”; “link long-term tea drinking to living longer, but the people who drink tea differ”; “sharper thinking, better sleep, cancer protection — rest on small, short studies”; “blocks absorption of iron and of a long list of common medications, and it carries real caffeine”; “already doing the fundamentals well … not a lever”.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 No acronyms; “tea compounds”, “cholesterol”, “blood pressure”, “iron”, “medications”, “caffeine” are all everyday terms a non-specialist would use unprompted.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) 🟢 No author name, year, cohort size or p-value appears.
7.6 It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results 🟢 Magnitudes are given qualitatively only (“fall slightly”, “a modest return”); no mg/dL, mmHg, risk ratio or confidence interval.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 All seven items come from that section — six from the “Populations who should avoid Matcha” list and the bortezomib entry which the section also flags as an absolute contraindication.
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 The ER names seven populations; all seven are present, none added.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Seven <li> elements at lines 542–548, all inside the stop_items span.
8.4 Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, no elaborations, no mechanistic rationale, no attributions, no citations, no study details. No content after an em-dash, en-dash, or hyphen-dash (e.g., “— dose reduction required”, “— reduced efficacy”) — these trailing clauses are stripped. Just the key fact. 🟢 No dash-trailing clause appears in any item; the ER’s mechanistic rationale for bortezomib (EGCG binding the boronic acid group) is correctly absent.
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). 🟢 Every applicability qualifier survives: “throughout treatment”, “Child-Pugh Class B or C”, “above twice the upper reference limit”, “ferritin below 30 ng/mL until repleted”, “beyond a total caffeine intake of 200 mg daily”, “unable to separate dosing by four hours”, “under 18”.
8.6 When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>” for severity ordering) that depends on an explanatory phrase to interpret, normalize the items to a plain comma-separated list rather than carrying through the bare symbol. N/A The ER’s Key Interactions & Contraindications section uses no bare ranking symbols — every threshold is written out in words (“above twice the upper reference limit”, “below 30 ng/mL”).
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 identifies seven such populations and the section is correspondingly populated, so the emptiness condition is respected.
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 ten items correspond to bullets in that ER section, in the ER’s own order.
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 The ER lists eleven interaction bullets; bortezomib is correctly excluded as the one carried into Contraindications, leaving exactly the ten present.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Ten <li> elements at lines 556–565, all inside the caution_items span.
9.4 Items are as concise as possible. No trailing explanations, no elaborations, no mechanistic rationale, no attributions, no citations, no study details. No content after an em-dash, en-dash, or hyphen-dash (e.g., “— dose reduction required”, “— reduced efficacy”) — these trailing clauses are stripped. Just the key fact. 🟢 Every ER severity suffix (“— caution, potentially major”, “— caution”, “— monitor”) and every mitigation clause is stripped; no item carries mechanism or study detail.
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 ER example-drug lists survive: the OATP1A2 beta-blockers, the two affected statins, the three kinase inhibitors, the four stimulant sources, and the six additive-effect supplements.
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 No ranking notation appears inside any parenthesis of the ER’s interaction bullets; all parenthetical content is plain drug lists.
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 identifies eleven such interactions and the section is correspondingly 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 cells trace to bullets in the ER Therapeutic Protocol section.
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Dose, preparation and timing are the three executable levers in that section; the remaining bullets are competing approaches, attributions, or modifying factors rather than implementation steps.
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 distinct actionable aspects, so 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. 🟢 “2–3 g/day” appears in the ER Protocol (“the 2–3 g daily dose used in subsequent trials”; “adults over 60 at 2–3 g/day”); the usucha value and the split-dosing, whisking and pre-exercise subs all come from Protocol bullets.

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’s “Time to effect” bullet names exactly three aspects — attention/alertness, cholesterol/blood pressure, and sleep/cognition — and all three are carried across.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Cholesterol and blood pressure (the ER’s only High-tier benefits, and the only ones with pooled effect sizes) lead, followed by sleep/cognition then attention, matching the ER’s own Medium-tier ordering.
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 aspects are present, so 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. 🟢 “8–12 weeks”/”Daily intake required”, “4 weeks to 12 months”/”Range observed across trials” and “30–60 minutes”/”Shift appears within one hour of intake” all derive from the ER’s “Time to effect” bullet and the attention benefit entry.
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 a dedicated “Time to effect” bullet, so the section is correctly retained.

12. Benefits

# Description Result Comments
12.1 The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section 🟢 All thirteen items are the H4 headings of that section, distributed across the ER’s own High/Medium/Low/Speculative tiers.
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four spans are present and populated (lines 521–532).
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. 🟢 Bare headings only; the ER’s “Magnitude:” lines, its “⚠️ Conflicted” flags and the ITO EN conflict-of-interest notes are all correctly omitted.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content is carried; the glossary expansions the ER attaches in body text (e.g. LDL, RCT) do not appear.
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 contain items in the ER, so no span needed hiding.

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 All nine items are the H4 headings of that section, in the ER’s own tier order.
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four spans are present and populated (lines 577–588).
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. 🟢 Bare headings only; the “Magnitude:” lines, the “⚠️ Conflicted” flags and the OATP1A2/P-glycoprotein mechanism text are all omitted.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content is carried into any risk 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 contain items in the ER, so no span needed hiding.

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 The table reproduces the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table, and the cadence comes from that section’s ongoing-monitoring paragraph.
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All ten ER table rows are present with names, targets and rationales verbatim: LDL cholesterol, ApoB, resting blood pressure, ALT, AST, ferritin, haemoglobin, fasting glucose, hs-CRP and blood lead.
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 718 reproduces the ER’s full schedule: baseline, blood pressure at 4 weeks, lipids and liver enzymes at 12 weeks, then every 6–12 months or 8 weeks after a substantial change in dose, brand or medication.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 All six items come from the “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the labs” list in that ER section.
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 The ER lists six qualitative markers and all six appear, correctly trimmed of their trailing explanatory clauses.

Issues 03/09/2026 04:01

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 03/09/2026 03:51

  1. 2.13 — Audience-differentiated verdict missing: The ER’s bottom line for an already-optimising reader — “For someone already doing the fundamentals well, matcha is a pleasant habit with a modest, honestly small measurable return — not a lever that changes the trajectory” (ER Conclusion, final paragraph) — is absent; at_a_glance (line 433) summarises only the first three Conclusion paragraphs.

Fixes 03/09/2026 03:51

  1. 2.13 — Audience-differentiated verdict added: Rewrote at_a_glance (line 433) to close with the ER Conclusion’s bottom line for an already-optimising reader — “For anyone already doing the basics well, a modest return, not a lever” — tightening the earlier clauses so the span stays at exactly 60 words.

Issues 03/09/2026 03:42

  1. 1.3 / 2.4 / 2.5 / 2.6 / 2.9 — Imperative dosing instruction in Protocol: [action_1_sub] at line 450 reads “Split into two servings six hours apart above 2 g”, an imperative that addresses the reader directly and issues clinical advice, and it strengthens the ER’s “split dosing is preferable above 2 g” (ER line 405) from a stated preference into an instruction.

Fixes 03/09/2026 03:42

  1. 1.3 / 2.4 / 2.5 / 2.6 / 2.9 — Imperative dosing instruction removed: [action_1_sub] changed from “Split into two servings six hours apart above 2 g” to “Split dosing preferable above 2 g, two servings six hours apart”, replacing the reader-directed command with the ER’s own descriptive framing of split dosing as preferable.