Audit: QRS - SLU-PP-332 for Muscle Growth

Audit conducted on 13/09/2026 14:31 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	86
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.	🟢	At-a-glance tracks ER Conclusion (ER 361–365); protocol cells track ER 268–273; time cells track ER 302; gates track ER 238–253; monitoring tracks ER 325–344.
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 dosed in a reported study”, “No human timeline exists for any endpoint”, “No established target; change from own baseline” all mirror ER wording.
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”).	🟢	Contraindication severity classes and thresholds carried at ER strength; animal-only framing retained on every benefit and timing cell.
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 draw only from ER Key Interactions & Contraindications; Benefit- and Risk-Modifying Factors are not surfaced anywhere.
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, citations, author names or NCT identifiers in the QRS; drug names (tamoxifen, warfarin, etc.) come from ER 238–242 for the same fact.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No 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.	🟢	Same sober, evidence-limited register as the ER.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Quantified targets and cadence give the reader actionable footing without hype.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Presents the evidence state and the monitoring panel; issues no directives.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative or prescriptive constructions; monitoring is reported, not prescribed.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “recommend”/”advise”/”should” in document voice.
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 only where necessary (route of administration, biomarker names).
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Every cell is a fragment or single clause; no prose paragraphs outside the lede.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — 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.	🟢	Contraindication gates, per-lot quality framing and optimal-range targets assume a proactive, risk-aware 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.	🟢	DEXA every 12 weeks, multi-panel bloodwork and cancer screening are presented without hedging on effort or 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 simplification or “ask your doctor” 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.	🟢	Lede foregrounds the muscle-size contradiction and the unregulated-powder status, the two facts that matter most to this 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 occurrence of “anti-aging”; “anti-doping” is the ER’s own term for a different concept.
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.	🟢	“Intraperitoneal”, “injected”, “dosed”, “laboratory powder” — no colloquial route or event language on any surface.

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 byte-identical to the template; “Speculative: “ tier label retained in both tiered cards; Marker/Target/Why unchanged.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 34 template variable names present; marker_#_* and qualitative_item_# correctly expanded to 9 and 6 instances.
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"> unchanged; diff against template shows no unrelated edits.

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”	🟢	No mapped ER section is empty; the empty benefit/risk tiers are handled under the more specific rules 12.5 and 13.5.
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.	🟢	“No human protocol exists”, “Published animal regimen”, “Single versus split dosing” and all six interaction labels are verbatim ER bold labels.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Time-to-effect labels are lifted from the ER’s own wording at ER 302 (“endurance gains”, “fibre and mitochondrial remodelling”, “acute gene response”).
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji codepoints in the file; the ER’s 🟩/🟥/🟨/⚠️/⭕️ markers were stripped.
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.	🟢	Every free-text cell is condensed to a fragment; the remaining volume is the completeness mandated by 8.2, 9.2, 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.	🟢	Comment opens at line 2, immediately after <!doctype html> at line 1.
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 preamble line 2 is outside the 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.	🟢	Enclosed in an HTML comment; no metadata value repeated in the body except the model name, which is the template’s own subline variable.
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: "00:03" is quoted, and it contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: slu_pp_332_muscle_2026-0913-1233_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]”	🟢	Line 5: qrs_prompt_version: 26.9.11, matching 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: 2026-0913-1411.
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” — 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]”	🟢	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” — nickname plus version, no qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	Line 9 matches the file on disk exactly.
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.	🟢	Confirmed across all 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., & for &)	🟢	“SLU-PP-332 for Muscle Growth - 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 &)	🟢	“SLU-PP-332 for Muscle Growth”, matching ER frontmatter line 8.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	2026-0913-1411 → 09/13/2026.
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” line was correctly not carried over; header holds only title and 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	🟢	Four sentences condensing ER 361–365: mechanism, animal result, absence of human data, market status.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	58 words.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	ER 361 (mechanism), ER 361/363 (mitochondria vs thinner fibres), ER 363 (no human dosed), ER 365 (unregulated laboratory powder).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	“control proteins” for ERRs and “energy-producing structures” for mitochondria; no acronyms present.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No study names, years or sample sizes.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numbers of any kind.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All seven items map to the “Populations who should avoid SLU-PP-332” list at ER 247–253.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All seven ER avoid-list bullets present, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Seven <li> elements inside the 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.	🟢	Trailing rationale stripped (“given complete absence of developmental and reproductive data”, “given extensive hepatic conjugation”, “for whom validated detection assays now exist”); no dashes present.
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).	🟢	“before age 50”, “Child-Pugh Class B or C”, “eGFR below 30 mL/min/1.73 m²”, “NYHA Class III or IV” all preserved; only the BRCA glossary gloss was dropped.
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 uses no ranking notation in this section.
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.	🟢	Section is populated, and the ER does identify such populations.
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 six items map to the interaction bullets at ER 238–243.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All six interaction bullets carried; none duplicates a contraindication item.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Six <li> elements inside the 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.	🟢	Severity ratings, mechanistic rationale and mitigation clauses all stripped; label plus example list only.
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-drug list preserved in full, including the dose thresholds “vitamin C above 1 g, vitamin E above 400 IU”.
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 uses no ranking notation in this section.
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.	🟢	Section is populated, and the ER does identify such interactions.
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 cells map to ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets at ER 268, 269, 271 and 273.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Absence of a human protocol, the published animal regimen, and split twice-daily dosing are the three load-bearing implementation facts.
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 Protocol section contains eleven 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 populated from ER 268–273; no placeholders remain.

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	🟢	Endurance gains, fibre/mitochondrial remodelling and the acute gene response are the three timelines the ER reports at ER 302.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Endurance gains (the compound’s most replicated effect, ER 164) first, structural remodelling second, transient gene response last.
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 exist; 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 fields populated; “gone by 6 hours” from ER 272/286, the rest from ER 302.
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 at ER 302.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	All seven entries are the ER Speculative subheads at ER 150–176.
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.	🟢	Bare semicolon-separated subhead names; no supporting prose, citations or effect sizes.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	The ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” and “⭕️ Not Central to Muscle Growth” qualifiers and all citations stripped; no parentheses remain.
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, benefits_medium and benefits_low carry style="display: none"; the ER’s “No benefit reaches High/Medium” prose was correctly not carried over.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All five entries are the ER Speculative subheads at ER 204–222, in ER order.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present.
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 semicolon-separated subhead names only.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	The “⚠️ Conflicted” marker and all PubMed citations stripped; no parentheses remain.
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, risks_medium and risks_low carry style="display: none"; the ER’s “No risk reaches High/Medium” prose was correctly not carried over.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All nine rows map to the biomarker table at ER 325–335.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	Nine of nine ER biomarkers present: ALT, creatine kinase, CBC, eGFR, fasting insulin, HbA1c, DEXA lean mass, grip strength, PSA.
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 321–323: baseline, 4 and 12 weeks, then 3–6 months, with the 12-week and 6-month sub-schedules.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All six items map to the qualitative marker list at ER 339–344.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	Six of six ER qualitative markers present, in ER order.

Issues 13/09/2026 14:31

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 13/09/2026 14:24

1. 4.5 — One-page budget exceeded: Several cells reproduce ER sentences unabridged rather than condensed — [marker_7target] (line 707), [monitoring_cadence] (lines 754-757), [action_1_sub] (lines 457-459) and several [marker#_why] cells — pushing the sheet beyond one A4 page.

Fixes 13/09/2026 14:24

1. 4.5 — Lean-mass target condensed: [marker_7_target] shortened from “No established target exists for this compound — change from the individual’s own baseline is the reference instead” to “No established target; change from own baseline”, cutting a four-line cell to one.
2. 4.5 — Monitoring cadence condensed: [monitoring_cadence] tightened from the full six-clause ER sentence to “Baseline before exposure; liver, muscle and blood-count panel at 4 and 12 weeks, then every 3 to 6 months; body composition and strength every 12 weeks; glucose and kidney filtration every 6 months; cancer screening per age and family history”.
3. 4.5 — Protocol sub-text condensed: [action_1_sub] reduced to “No practitioner, clinic or guideline describes a human regimen; what exists is literature and vendor practice, not a validated schedule”, and [action_3_sub] trimmed to “split twice-daily dosing” and “peaks 1 to 3 hours after a dose”.
4. 4.5 — Monitoring rationale cells condensed: [marker_2_why], [marker_3_why], [marker_7_why], [marker_8_why] and [marker_9_why] rewritten in shorter form (e.g. “The goal endpoint, never measured on this compound”; “Functional muscle output; the one strength signal seen in mice”) while keeping the same ER-supported meaning.

Issues 13/09/2026 14:20

1. 1.3 — Human-dosing claim strengthened: [action_1_value] states “No human has been dosed”, dropping the ER’s qualifier “in a reported study” (ER line 268) and contradicting the ER’s own account of grey-market self-injection (ER line 222); [action_1_sub] likewise drops “leading” from the ER’s “No leading practitioner, clinic or guideline describes a human regimen”.

Fixes 13/09/2026 14:20

1. 1.3 — Human-dosing claim re-qualified: Changed [action_1_value] from “No human has been dosed” to “No human dosed in a reported study”, restoring the ER’s qualifier, and restored “leading” in [action_1_sub] so it reads “No leading practitioner, clinic or guideline describes a human regimen” as the ER states.

Issues 13/09/2026 14:17

1. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol labels not ER labels: [action_1_label] reads “Human Protocol” where the ER bullet label is “No human protocol exists:” (ER line 268), and [action_3_label] reads “Dose Splitting & Timing”, an invented label fusing the ER’s “Single versus split dosing:” and “Best time of day:” bullets (QRS lines 450 and 478).

Fixes 13/09/2026 14:17

1. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol labels restored to ER wording: [action_1_label] changed from “Human Protocol” to the ER’s bullet label “No human protocol exists”, and [action_3_label] from the invented “Dose Splitting & Timing” to the ER’s “Single versus split dosing”; [action_2_label] was normalised to the ER’s casing “Published animal regimen”.
2. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol cell 1 de-duplicated after relabel: [action_1_value] changed from “None exists” to “No human has been dosed”, and its sub from “…no human has been dosed in a reported study” to “…what is reported is literature and vendor practice, not a validated schedule”, so label, value and sub no longer repeat one another (ER line 268).