Audit: QRS - sh-Polypeptide-59 for Hair Regrowth

Audit conducted on 08/07/2026 20:57 using AI4L / Opus 4.8

Summary

Items	Count
Total	91
Passed	84
Failed	0
N/A	7
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 content traces to the ER (Protocol, Benefits, Risks, Interactions, Monitoring, Conclusion).
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.	🟢	At-a-glance preserves “unproven”, “no human study shows it regrows hair” matching ER.
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 detected.
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 and Interactions drawn from the ER’s own “Key Interactions & Contraindications” section.
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 citations, IDs, or brand names appear in the QRS.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions introduced.

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.	🟢	Cautious, objective, evidence-first tone matches ER.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Tone consistent throughout.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Presents evidence, not directives.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No prescriptive advice; footnote disclaimer present.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	Descriptive framing used throughout.
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 used; technical terms minimal.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Content is compact and fits the card layout.
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 suits a proactive, risk-aware adult.
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 content assumes this 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 reflects the intended 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.	🟢	No “anti-aging” language present.
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 used (e.g., “serum”, “microneedling”, “contact dermatitis”).

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 and labels are unchanged.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All template spans present, including empty/hidden time_2, time_3, high, medium sets.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	Untouched spans remain intact.

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 is empty; all mapped sections contain content.
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.	🟢	Labels drawn from ER headings/labels.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Labels faithful to the ER.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji in content; ER’s ⚠️ marker on the malignancy risk was correctly dropped.
4.5	The QRS is designed to render on one A4 page. Any section that has more content in the ER than fits the per-section budget is condensed by the LLM, not extended onto a second page.	🟢	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 the 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 an 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 quoted (contains colon).
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	er_filename: sh_polypeptide_59_hair_2026-0708-1916_Opus_ER.md
5.6	Version of the QRS.md file used to create the document is stated as “qrs_prompt_version: [Version of QRS.md]”	🟢	qrs_prompt_version: 26.7.02
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: 2026-0708-2049
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 nickname “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
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: sh_polypeptide_59_hair_2026-0708-1916_Opus_QRS.html
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; quoting only where required.

#	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 `&`)	🟢	“sh-Polypeptide-59 for Hair Regrowth - Quick Reference Sheet”; no entities required.
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER `frontmatter`, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., `&` for `&`)	🟢	“sh-Polypeptide-59 for Hair Regrowth”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	07/08/2026 matches qrs_creation_date 2026-0708.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	“Opus 4.8”.
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 limited to the standard 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.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	55 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Each clause maps to a Conclusion passage.
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	Plain-language throughout (“lab-made copy”, “growth-factor protein”, “scalp serums”).
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trials cited.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No statistics cited.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER `Key Interactions & Contraindications` section	🟢	Drawn from the ER’s “Populations who should avoid it” bullet.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	Pregnancy/breastfeeding, cancer history, actinic keratoses, active infection, inflammatory disease, hypersensitivity all present.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Each item is an <li>.
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.	🟢	Rationale like “(no safety data)” stripped; no trailing dashes.
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).	🟢	Infection example “(tinea capitis, bacterial folliculitis)” 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	ER uses no ranking notation in this section.
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	🟢	Drawn from the ER interaction bullets.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	Minoxidil, retinoids/exfoliants, corticosteroids, procedures, other GF serums; no overlap with contraindications.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Each item is an <li>.
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/mitigation text stripped; no trailing dashes.
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 “(tretinoin, adapalene)” and “(salicylic acid, glycolic acid)” preserved.
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	ER uses no ranking notation in this section.
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	🟢	Application, microneedling, and formulation drawn from the ER Therapeutic Protocol.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER `Protocol` section	🟢	Application frequency, microneedling schedule, formulation type.
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 actionable aspects are present and used.
10.4	All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER `Protocol` section.	🟢	All three sets carry meaningful 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	🟢	Only one time-to-effect aspect exists in the ER (3–6 months); it is captured.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Single aspect; ordering trivially satisfied.
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.	🟢	time_2 and time_3 are empty and set to display:none.
11.4	All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER.	🟢	time_1: Visible Change / 3–6 months / Minimum window of consistent use.
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 does provide time-to-effect information.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER `Expected Benefits` section	🟢	Low and Speculative tiers drawn from Expected Benefits.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four variables handled.
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 heading-level phrasing only.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	“(Growth)” stripped from “Prolongation of the Anagen (Growth) Phase” → “prolonged growth phase”.
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.	🟢	High and Medium spans set to display:none.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER `Potential Risks & Side Effects` section	🟢	Low and Speculative tiers drawn from Potential Risks & Side Effects.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four variables handled.
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 phrasing; “Documented”/”Conflicted” trimmed.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheticals carried through.
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.	🟢	High and Medium spans set to display:none.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER `Monitoring` section	🟢	Biomarker table and cadence drawn from the ER Monitoring Protocol.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the `Monitoring` section are listed	🟢	Ferritin, Vitamin D, TSH, testosterone, Zinc, CBC (hemoglobin) — all six present with matching ranges and rationale.
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.	🟢	“Baseline standardized photos, then reassess at about 3 and 6 months, and every 6–12 months thereafter.”

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER `Monitoring` section	🟢	Drawn from the ER’s qualitative/self-tracked markers.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the `Monitoring` section are listed	🟢	All five qualitative markers present (density/part width, shedding counts, pull test, texture/coverage, absence of irritation).

Issues 08/07/2026 20:57

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.