Audit: QRS - Navitoclax as a Senolytic Therapy

Audit conducted on 22/09/2026 12:07 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.	🟢	Protocol, time-to-effect, benefit, risk, contraindication, interaction, biomarker and qualitative content all trace to ER Therapeutic Protocol, Practical Considerations, Expected Benefits, Potential Risks & Side Effects, Key Interactions & Contraindications and 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.	🟢	“No human equivalent established” (ER: “no human equivalent has been established”), “never measured in people” (ER: “No human study has measured senescent-cell burden”), “No established target exists” (ER biomarker table) all preserved.
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”).	🟢	Speculative benefits remain speculative; the platelet ceiling, the absence of human senolytic data and the investigational status are stated at ER strength.
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 from the ER “Populations who should avoid Navitoclax” list, Key Interactions from the ER interaction bullets, risks from Potential Risks & Side Effects; no Benefit- or Risk-Modifying Factor is surfaced as a 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.	🟢	No PMIDs, author names, NCT identifiers or brand names appear anywhere in the QRS.
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.	🟢	The At-A-Glance mirrors the ER Conclusion register (“worn-out senescent cells”, “every human result comes from cancer medicine”).
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Thresholds, schedules and biomarker ranges are given without hedging or alarmism.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is stated descriptively (“Monotherapy schedule taken furthest”, “The point at which spleen and symptom responses were assessed in trials”).
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative directed at a reader; the one protocol threshold (“hold below 75 × 10⁹/L”) is reported as the ER biomarker table states it.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “recommend”, “advise”, “should” or “guidance” wording appears.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the document.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms retained (BCL-2, BCL-xL, p16INK4a) are the intervention’s own mechanism and appear verbatim from the ER; elsewhere plain wording is used (“worn-out senescent cells”, “non-blood adverse event”).
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Benefit and risk entries are semicolon-separated key facts; gate items carry no rationale.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — no direct address anywhere.
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 sheet leads with the senolytic framing and the evidence gap, and keeps the full monitoring panel.
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.	🟢	A ten-biomarker panel with weekly escalation counts and a 3-monthly immunoglobulin check is retained rather than simplified.
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.	🟢	Assumes willingness to track platelet, neutrophil, lymphocyte and liver values and to observe drug-free intervals.
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 oncology benefits are explicitly flagged as “not central to senolytic therapy”, keeping the longevity reader’s frame separate from the cancer evidence.
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.	🟢	The string “anti-aging” does not appear.
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.	🟢	“administered continuously in 21-day cycles”, “Once daily, orally”, “capping how much can be administered”, “adverse event” — no consumer-grade route or event wording, including in the lede.

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 titles, tier labels and the Marker/Target/Why column headers are byte-identical to [qrs_template].
3.2	All “<span data-qrs-var=”NAME”>…</span>” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 34 template variable names are present; the repeated marker_#_* and qualitative_item_# spans are expanded to 10 and 5 instances respectively.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	<span website="evidence_review">, <span website="audit"> and <span website="full_review"> are unchanged; the CSS block, print rules and footer disclaimer are identical to the template.

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 carries an empty-state phrasing; the one empty tier (Benefits “Low”) is governed by item 12.5.
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.	🟢	“Oncology monotherapy schedule”, “Preclinical senolytic schedule” and “Best time of day” are the ER Therapeutic Protocol bold labels verbatim.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Protocol labels, all ten marker names and all five qualitative entries match the ER wording; the Time-to-Effect labels are drawn from the ER’s own “Time to effect” prose, which carries no bold labels.
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 ⭕️ and ⚠️ markers were dropped and tiering is carried by the bold “High:” / “Medium:” / “Speculative:” labels and CSS.
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.	🟢	Benefits and risks are collapsed to single semicolon-separated entries per tier and gate items carry no rationale, keeping the sheet within the A4 print budget.

---

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.
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 descriptive text precedes the opening delimiter.
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.	🟢	Entirely inside the 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: "00:04" is quoted, which the colon requires.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	er_filename: navitoclax_senolytic_2026-0922-0928_Opus_ER.md (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 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: 2026-0922-1149.
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.
5.9	The nickname of the AI is just a single word model name without version, etc. (e.g., Opus, Sonnet, Grok, Gemini, ChatGPT)	🟢	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.
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: navitoclax_senolytic_2026-0922-0928_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, including git_user and git_issue.

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 &)	🟢	“Navitoclax as a Senolytic Therapy - Quick Reference Sheet”; no characters requiring encoding.
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	“Navitoclax as a Senolytic Therapy”, matching canonical_topic exactly.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	2026-0922-1149 → “09/22/2026”.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	“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.	🟢	The ER’s “Also known as: ABT-263, ABT263” line is correctly absent; header carries only title and the template subline.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Mechanism, animal-versus-human evidence split, the dose-capping platelet fall and the access constraint — all four paragraphs of the ER Conclusion are represented.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	Exactly 60 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Traces to Conclusion paragraphs 1–2 and to Sourcing and Quality (“never received marketing approval in any jurisdiction”, “Trial supply is the only validated route”).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “senescent” is glossed in place as “worn-out”, matching the ER’s own plain-language handling.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial, author, year or sample size is named.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	“in proportion to the dose” is qualitative; no percentages or statistics appear.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	Sourced from the “Populations who should avoid Navitoclax” list in that section.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All eight ER bullets are present, in ER order; the ER’s absolute-contraindication interaction (anticoagulants / dual antiplatelet therapy) is covered by the “Requirement for therapeutic anticoagulation or dual antiplatelet therapy” item.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eight <li> elements 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 dashes, rationale or citations in any item.
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 C)”, “(within 28 days)”, “(bone density T-score −2.5 or below)”, “below 75 × 10⁹/L” and “below 1.0 × 10⁹/L” all preserved.
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 contraindication list 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 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. <!– empty: ER names no population that should avoid the intervention –>	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 seven items map one-to-one onto ER interaction bullets.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	Seven of the ER’s eight interaction bullets are carried; the anticoagulant / antiplatelet bullet (“Absolute contraindication in trial protocols”) is correctly excluded and appears in the Contraindications gate instead.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Seven <li> elements 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.	🟢	The ER’s “Caution / Monitor” verdicts, consequences and mitigations are all stripped; only the agent classes remain.
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 ER example list is preserved in full: inducers, inhibitors, NSAIDs, chemotherapy agents, antiplatelet supplements and senolytic 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	The ER interaction bullets use 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 eight 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. <!– empty: ER names no interaction that changes how the intervention is used –>	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 bullets in ER Therapeutic Protocol.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	The dose-and-schedule regimen taken furthest, the preclinical senolytic schedule (the topic-relevant regimen), and timing of administration — the three implementable aspects of a twelve-bullet section.
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 twelve bullets; all three sets are used.
10.4	All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section.	🟢	All nine fields carry ER-derived content; the 150 mg → 325 mg lead-in, the 50 mg/kg rodent schedule and the 15–25 hour half-life all appear in the ER.

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 Practical Considerations “Time to effect” bullet names exactly three horizons — platelet fall, spleen and symptom response, rodent senescent-cell clearance — and all three are carried.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Spleen and symptom response (High-tier benefit) → senescent-cell clearance (Speculative-tier benefit) → platelet fall (no associated benefit).
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 are present in the ER; 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.	🟢	“24 weeks”, “Within days” and “Within hours” with ER-sourced subs, including the 1–2 week platelet recovery from Discontinuation & Cycling.
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	🟢	Tier-for-tier mapping onto the ER’s High, Medium, Low and Speculative headings.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present.
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.	🟢	Benefit titles only; no Magnitude figures (63.2%, 35%, 33%), no trial phases, no funding notes, no mechanism. The retained “not central to senolytic therapy” is the ER’s own topic-relevance flag on the heading, which the tier does not encode.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any benefits entry.
12.5	If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective <SPAN> is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing.	🟢	The ER’s “### Low 🟩” tier is empty and benefits_low is an empty span carrying style="display: none".

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All five High, two Medium, two Low and five Speculative ER entries are carried.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated.
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.	🟢	Semicolon-separated risk names only; the ER’s grade percentages (54.0%, 40.3%, 41.9%) and patient counts are all stripped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any risks entry; the ER’s glosses such as “(spongy inner)” are removed.
13.5	If no items of a specific sub-section (high, medium, low, speculative) are present the respective <SPAN> is set to “display=none”, not filled with “None documented in human trials to date” or similar empty-state phrasing.	N/A	All four ER risk tiers contain entries, so no span needs hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Taken from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table and its cadence paragraph.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All ten ER table rows appear, in ER order, with the ER’s functional ranges and “Why Measure It?” text preserved.
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.	🟢	Carries the full ER cadence: weekly during escalation, two-weekly to week 8, then monthly; liver enzymes at weeks 2 and 4; immunoglobulins 3-monthly; response at week 24 and every 12 weeks.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Taken from the ER’s “Qualitative markers tracked alongside laboratory values” list.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All five ER bullets are present and unabridged.

Issues 22/09/2026 12:07

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 22/09/2026 12:00

1. 1.1 / 1.3 / 7.3 — At-a-glance overstates animal effect: [at_a_glance] (line 433) claims navitoclax “restores aged tissue” in animals, but the ER limits the claim to stem cells — Conclusion: “aged stem cells regain function”; Expected Benefits: “Rejuvenation of Aged Tissue Stem Cells”. Generalising to whole tissue is unsupported and strengthens the ER.

Fixes 22/09/2026 12:00

1. 1.1 / 1.3 / 7.3 — At-a-glance animal claim narrowed: [at_a_glance] changed from “clears those cells and restores aged tissue” to “clears them and restores aged stem cells”, matching the ER Conclusion (“aged stem cells regain function”); the summary remains exactly 60 words.

Issues 22/09/2026 11:54

1. 1.1 / 7.3 — At-a-glance misstates protein count: The lede (line 433) claims navitoclax “blocks three proteins that keep worn-out senescent cells alive”, but ER line 127 states senescent cells are “held alive chiefly by BCL-xL and BCL-w” — two of the three — and ER line 491 keeps those clauses separate.
2. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol labels not taken from ER: The three Protocol cell labels “Oral Dose” (line 444), “Senolytic Schedule” (line 458) and “Administration” (line 472) are invented instead of using the ER’s bold bullet labels “Oncology monotherapy schedule”, “Preclinical senolytic schedule” and “Best time of day” (ER lines 367, 373, 377).

Fixes 22/09/2026 11:54

1. 1.1 / 7.3 — At-a-glance protein attribution corrected: Rewrote the lede opening from “blocks three proteins that keep worn-out senescent cells alive” to “blocks three proteins cells use to stay alive; worn-out senescent cells depend on two”, matching ER lines 127 and 491; trimmed the closing clause to keep the passage within the 60-word limit.
2. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol labels restored from ER: Replaced the invented cell labels “Oral Dose”, “Senolytic Schedule” and “Administration” with the ER’s verbatim bold bullet labels “Oncology monotherapy schedule”, “Preclinical senolytic schedule” and “Best time of day”.