Audit: QRS - Rosmarinic Acid for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 26/06/2026 04:43 using AI4L / Opus 4.8

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 91
Passed 85
Failed 0
N/A 6
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. 🟢 All QRS content traces to the ER (At-a-Glance ↔ Conclusion; Protocol, Time to Effect, Benefits, Risks, Monitoring, Gates all match ER sections).
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. 🟢 Speculative tiers and “theoretical” framing preserved (e.g., drug-metabolism, bleeding tendency, pregnancy).
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/breastfeeding kept as contraindication; speculative items kept speculative.
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. 🟢 Gates derive from ER Key Interactions & Contraindications; risks from Risks section; no cross-category relabeling.
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, NCTs, expert names, or brand names introduced in the QRS.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 No new attributions 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. 🟢 Tone matches the measured, evidence-graded ER voice.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Expert yet accessible throughout.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 Presents evidence, not prescriptions.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 No directive medical advice; footer disclaimer present.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 Content is descriptive (e.g., “Favor standardized extracts” presented as protocol finding).
2.6 The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance 🟢 No second-person address.
2.7 The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon 🟢 Plain language; technical terms explained or avoided.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Compact card layout, terse phrasing.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 No direct address.
2.10 The target audience is health- and longevity-oriented adults who are risk-aware, proactive, and actively seeking to optimize health or apply the intervention under review. 🟢 Framing fits this audience.
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. 🟢 Protocol/monitoring detail assumes a proactive audience.
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. 🟢 Not written for the general population.
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. 🟢 Weighting consistent with ER and audience.
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. 🟢 Uses “longevity”; no “anti-aging” language.
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 register maintained.

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/labels present and unmodified.
3.2 All “” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All 56 template spans present, none duplicated.
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 Unaddressed spans unchanged.

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 relevant ER section is empty in a way the QRS must fill with empty-state phrasing.
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/monitoring labels mirror ER labels.
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Labels faithful to ER.
4.4 The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels. 🟢 No emoji indicators in the QRS body.
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. 🟢 Content condensed to fit one page.

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. 🟢 Metadata comment is the first element after doctype (lines 2-14).
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. 🟢 YAML delimited by — at lines 3 and 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 HTML comment; not rendered.
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. 🟢 Values trimmed; only duration is quoted (contains colon).
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 er_filename: rosmarinic_acid_2026-0626-0250_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: 26.5.18 (line 5), matches 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) 🟢 qrs_creation_date: 2026-0626-0250 (line 6).
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) 🟢 Single word “Opus”.
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 4.8 (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 4.8” — nickname plus version, no qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 qrs_filename: rosmarinic_acid_2026-0626-0250_Opus_QRS.html (line 9).
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. 🟢 Values clean and consistent.

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 &) 🟢 “Rosmarinic Acid for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet” (line 22).
6.2 [header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., &amp; for &) 🟢 “Rosmarinic Acid for Health & Longevity” (line 417).
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 “06/26/2026” (line 421), matches 2026-0626.
6.4 [header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname] 🟢 “Opus 4.8” (line 425).
6.5 No additional header content appears: no badge, version stamp, AKA / alternate names line, source-AI attribution, audit date, or QRS variant marker. 🟢 Header carries only date, model, and standard AI4L subline.

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 441-443).
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 47 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Each claim maps to the Conclusion.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 Plain-language; “free-radical-quenching”, “inflammation-calming” used; no specialist acronyms.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) 🟢 No trial citations.
7.6 It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results 🟢 No statistics.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from ER lines 295-309.
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 Pregnancy/breastfeeding, mint/perilla allergy, bleeding/surgery, NTI meds (lines 542-545) match ER line 309.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Four <li> items.
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. 🟢 Concise; no trailing dash clauses.
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). 🟢 “(prior reaction)” and “within ~2 weeks” 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. 🟢 No ranking notation present; items are plain.
8.7 If no [stop_items] are present the section is left empty N/A Stop items are present.

9. Key Interactions

# Description Result Comments
9.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from ER lines 297-308.
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 Six interaction bullets carried over; contraindications excluded.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Six <li> items.
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. 🟢 Severity/rationale clauses stripped; only drug categories and examples kept.
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). 🟢 Example drug lists preserved (warfarin, lisinopril, losartan, amlodipine, etc.).
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. 🟢 No ranking notation; plain comma lists used.
9.7 If no [caution_items] are present the section is left empty N/A Caution items are present.

10. Protocol

# Description Result Comments
10.1 The section is derived from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Derived from ER Therapeutic Protocol (lines 327-348).
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Standard intake range, extract-vs-isolated, condition-matched preparations.
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 Three distinct actionable aspects are present.
10.4 All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section. 🟢 All three action sets filled with ER-derived content.

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 🟢 Allergy (1–3 weeks), Cognition (30–90 days), Joint (16 weeks) from ER line 378.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Allergy (Medium) first, then Cognition and Joint (Low).
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 time-to-effect aspects are present.
11.4 All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER. 🟢 All three time sets filled with ER-derived content.
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.

12. Benefits

# Description Result Comments
12.1 The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section 🟢 Derived from ER lines 157-217.
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four variables present; high set to display:none (no High-tier benefits).
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. 🟢 Concise tier lists, no qualifiers.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parentheticals retained.
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. 🟢 benefits_high empty and set to display:none (line 521).

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 Derived from ER lines 238-273.
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four present; high and medium set to display:none.
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. 🟢 Concise; frequencies stripped.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parentheticals retained.
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. 🟢 risks_high and risks_medium set to display:none (lines 570, 573).

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from ER Monitoring table (lines 408-414).
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 hs-CRP, INR, Blood pressure, F2-isoprostanes, Fasting glucose — all five present.
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. 🟢 Cadence populated (line 656) from ER line 406.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from ER qualitative markers (lines 416-423).
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All six qualitative markers present (lines 665-681).

Issues 26/06/2026 04:43

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 26/06/2026 04:38

  1. 7.4 — Technical term in At-A-Glance: [at_a_glance] (line 433) opens with “An herb-derived polyphenol”, but “polyphenol” is a technical chemical classification a non-specialist would not use unprompted with exact meaning; a plain-language gloss or substitution is required.

Fixes 26/06/2026 04:38

  1. 7.4 — Plain-language term in At-A-Glance: Replaced “An herb-derived polyphenol” with “An herb-derived plant compound” in [at_a_glance], removing the technical chemical classification a non-specialist would not use unprompted.

Issues 26/06/2026 04:35

  1. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol label abbreviated: action_2_label “Extract vs Isolated Compound” (QRS line 455) abbreviates the ER bold label “Extract versus isolated compound” (ER line 331); “versus” must not be shortened to “vs”.

Fixes 26/06/2026 04:35

  1. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol label abbreviated: Changed action_2_label from “Extract vs Isolated Compound” to the ER’s verbatim bold label “Extract versus isolated compound”.