Audit: QRS - MitoQ for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 26/08/2026 05:21 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 93
Passed 82
Failed 0
N/A 11
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. 🟢 Verified span by span against the ER: protocol cells vs ER lines 384-392, time cells vs ER lines 443 and 171, benefit/risk tiers vs ER headings, gates vs ER lines 333-360, markers vs ER table lines 477-483, qualitative items vs ER lines 487-492.
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 phrasing is carried over (“only in the subgroup that started stiff”, “no theoretical advantage”, “years of continuous use are untested”, “unresolved kidney signal”).
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”). 🟢 No strengthening or softening; e.g. the ER contraindication “estimated filtration rate below 30 mL/min/1.73 m², stages 4-5” is preserved at the same severity.
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. 🟢 “No measurable vascular benefit in regularly exercising adults” is taken from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects Low tier, not from Benefit-Modifying Factors.
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, study names or expert names appear. Named drugs and supplements (amlodipine, omeprazole, urolithin A, L-Citrulline) all appear in the ER for the same fact.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 No attributions of any kind appear in the QRS.

2. Focus, Tone & Audience

# Description Result Comments
2.1 The QRS follows the tone of the ER, which is determined by the ER’s own language, phrasing, and framing. 🟢 Sober, quantified, limitation-forward tone matching the ER.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Expert and data-driven while remaining accessible; the who-benefits framing is actionable rather than discouraging.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 Presents thresholds and observed findings rather than instructions.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 No prescriptive or clinical-advice phrasing; the Monitoring targets are presented as the ER’s functional ranges.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 Content is stated descriptively (“All trials used a single daily dose”, “Improvements were measured at six weeks”).
2.6 The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance 🟢 No second-person address anywhere in the file; marker 4 uses “the individual’s own baseline”, the ER’s own wording.
2.7 The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon 🟢 Technical terms are expanded in full (flow-mediated dilation, carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity, alanine aminotransferase, oxidised low-density lipoprotein) rather than abbreviated.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Every section is compressed to phrase-level entries; the whole sheet is a small fraction of the ER.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 Confirmed by a full-text scan for second-person pronouns: 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. 🟢 Content assumes a reader who will measure baseline vascular function, buy a $2-4/day supplement and track seven biomarkers.
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. 🟢 Monitoring cadence, empty-stomach dosing and vascular imaging at baseline and three months all presuppose willingness to take on inconvenience and cost.
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 general-population simplifications; the sheet retains functional rather than conventional biomarker thresholds.
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 explicitly surfaces the signal that matters for this audience: benefit “fading to nothing in regular exercisers”.
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. 🟢 Full-text scan found no occurrence of “anti-aging” or “anti-ageing”.
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 (“antihypertensives”, “cytotoxic chemotherapy”, “gastrointestinal reflux”, “hypersensitivity”).

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 verified verbatim: “Protocol”, “Time to effect”, “Benefits”, “Risk & Side Effects”, “Monitoring”, “Qualitative Assessment”, “Contraindications”, “Key Interactions”, the four tier labels, and “Marker”/”Target”/”Why”.
3.2 All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All 39 template variable names are present; marker_#* is expanded to markers 1-7 and qualitative_item# to items 1-6, as intended.
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 A structural diff against the template shows no change to any static markup, comment, style rule, footer text, or the website= spans.

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 ER section is empty; the Risks High subsection is governed by item 13.5, not by this item.
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 are the ER’s bold labels verbatim: “Standard chronic dose”, “Best time of day”, “Single versus split dosing” (ER lines 384, 390, 392).
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Time-to-effect labels reuse ER terminology (“Walking capacity” and “Arterial stiffness” are ER benefit headings; “Artery widening” is the ER’s own plain-language rendering at line 161 and 520).
4.4 The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels. 🟢 Full-text scan found no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨 or any other emoji indicator.
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. 🟢 Discretionary sections are tightly condensed; the only long blocks (7 biomarkers, 6 qualitative markers) are mandated in full by items 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. 🟢 The metadata comment opens on line 2, immediately after <!doctype html> on line 1, and precedes 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, closing --- on line 13; the preceding title text sits outside the YAML block.
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 sits inside an HTML comment and is not duplicated by any rendered element.
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 are trimmed and unquoted except duration: "00:02", which contains a colon and therefore requires quoting.
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 er_filename: mitoq_2026-0826-0224_Opus_ER.md (line 4), matching the source ER.
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: 26.7.02 (line 5), 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) 🟢 qrs_creation_date: 2026-0826-0512 (line 6), correct YYYY-MMDD-HHMM 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 (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” 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]” 🟢 qrs_creator_ai_fullname: Opus 5 (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” is nickname plus version number with no additional qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 qrs_filename: mitoq_2026-0826-0224_Opus_QRS.html (line 9), 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 or 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 &) 🟢 <title>MitoQ for Health &amp; Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet</title> (line 22), with & correctly entity-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 &) 🟢 header_topic is “MitoQ for Health & Longevity” (line 417), matching the ER canonical_topic.
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 “08/26/2026” (line 421), the MM/DD/YYYY form of qrs_creation_date 2026-0826-0512.
6.4 [header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname] 🟢 “Opus 5” (line 425), matching qrs_creator_ai_fullname.
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 carries only the template’s own subline; no badge, alternate-names line, version stamp or variant marker.

7. At-A-Glance Section

# Description Result Comments
7.1 [at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section 🟢 Condenses the ER Conclusion (lines 518-524) into mechanism, what the trials support, who benefits, what failed, and the safety/duration caveat.
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 57 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Each of the five statements maps to a distinct ER Conclusion passage (lines 518, 520, 522, 520, 522/524).
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 Uses “energy-producing compartments”, “artery widening”, “vessel function” instead of mitochondria, flow-mediated dilation and endothelial function; 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 effect size, confidence interval or statistical result appears.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Taken from the “Populations who should avoid MitoQ” list in the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section (lines 353-360).
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 All six ER avoid-population bullets are represented, one to one.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Six <li> elements inside the stop_items span (lines 575-583).
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. 🟢 All six em-dash rationales are stripped (e.g. “— no human safety data at any dose”, “— unpredictable modulation of treatment response”).
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). 🟢 Thresholds and windows preserved: “below 30 mL/min/1.73 m², stages 4-5” and “outside 2.0-3.0 in the preceding three months”.
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 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. N/A The section is not left empty; six contraindications are listed.
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 left empty.

9. Key Interactions

# Description Result Comments
9.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Taken from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications bullet list (lines 333-351).
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 Eight interactions carried over; cytotoxic chemotherapy/radiotherapy is correctly excluded as a contraindication, and the statin bullet is excluded because the ER states “No interaction; complementary … No dose change needed”.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Eight <li> elements inside the caution_items span (lines 591-601).
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. 🟢 Mechanism, consequence and mitigation clauses are all stripped; only the agent class remains.
9.5 Parenthetical qualifiers from the ER bullet — example drug lists, time windows, severity classes, threshold values, clinical staging — ARE preserved as part of the item, kept as concise as possible (shortened or trimmed where needed to fit the one-page budget, but never dropped entirely). 🟢 Every parenthetical drug list is preserved verbatim (amlodipine/lisinopril/losartan; metformin/insulin/gliclazide; omeprazole/esomeprazole/calcium carbonate; vitamin C/vitamin E/N-acetylcysteine; beetroot juice/L-Citrulline; urolithin A/pyrroloquinoline quinone/nicotinamide riboside).
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 Key Interactions & Contraindications section 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. N/A The section is not left empty; eight interactions are listed.
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 left empty.

10. Protocol

# Description Result Comments
10.1 The section is derived from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Derived from the ER Therapeutic Protocol section (lines 382-408).
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 are the three decisive implementation choices; approach-selection and population bullets are secondary.
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 provides well over three actionable aspects; all three sets are used.
10.4 All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section. 🟢 All nine action fields carry ER-derived content; sub-lines condense ER lines 384, 390 and 392.

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 🟢 Artery widening, walking capacity and arterial stiffness are the only three time-to-effect aspects the ER quantifies.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Artery widening (High tier) leads; the two Medium-tier aspects follow, with the quantified walking-capacity result ahead of the arterial-stiffness result, which the ER notes carries no reported outcome figure (line 173).
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 time fields carry ER-derived content from ER lines 443 and 171.
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 (Practical Considerations, line 443).

12. Benefits

# Description Result Comments
12.1 The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section 🟢 Derived from the ER Expected Benefits section (lines 153-235).
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four benefit spans are present and populated.
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 tier is a semicolon-separated list of bare ER benefit headings with no magnitudes, citations or mechanisms.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content survives; FMD percentages, SMDs and confidence intervals from ER lines 163, 181 and 191 are all absent.
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; no sub-section is empty.

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 Derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section (lines 255-311).
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four risk spans are present; risks_high is present and hidden.
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 tier is a semicolon-separated list of bare ER risk headings; the ⚠️ Conflicted markers and magnitude lines are dropped.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No frequencies or severity grades survive; the 35%/27.8% and 40%/33% figures from ER lines 269 and 277 are absent.
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 risk reaches High (line 261), and risks_high is set to style="display: none" with an empty body (line 613) rather than carrying empty-state text.

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success section (lines 469-483).
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All seven ER biomarker table rows are present, with targets and rationales carried over 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. 🟢 Populated from ER line 473 with the weekly/monthly, three-month and six-to-twelve-month cadence.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from the qualitative marker list in the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success section (lines 485-492).
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All six ER qualitative markers are present, in ER order.

Issues 26/08/2026 05:21

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 26/08/2026 05:18

  1. 1.2 / 1.3 — Hedge dropped in split-dosing note: [action_3_sub] at lines 485–486 states “splitting offers no advantage”, whereas ER line 392 says “splitting offers no theoretical advantage and is not supported by any trial”; removing “theoretical” strengthens the claim.
  2. 1.3 / 1.4 — Statins listed as a Key Interaction: Line 602 places “Statins (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin)” inside the Key Interactions decision gate, although ER line 339 states “No interaction; complementary … No dose change needed”, relabelling an explicit non-interaction as a caution.

Fixes 26/08/2026 05:18

  1. 1.2 / 1.3 — Split-dosing hedge restored: [action_3_sub] changed from “splitting offers no advantage” to “splitting offers no theoretical advantage”, matching the ER’s cautious phrasing.
  2. 1.3 / 1.4 — Statins removed from Key Interactions: Deleted the “Statins (atorvastatin, rosuvastatin)” item from [caution_items], since the ER records statins as “No interaction; complementary” rather than a caution.