Audit: QRS - Tacrolimus Ointment for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 20/09/2026 22:49 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	83
Failed	0
N/A	10
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.	🟢	Every variable traces to ER text: protocol cells to the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets, time-to-effect cells to Practical Considerations and Expected Benefits, gates to Key Interactions & Contraindications, tiers to the ER benefit/risk headings, markers and cadence to 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.	🟢	The ER’s speculative-tier framing is carried by the “Speculative” tier labels; no ER hedge is dropped or replaced.
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 and breastfeeding stay under Contraindications; ultraviolet therapy keeps its absolute-contraindication placement; all CYP3A4 items stay as cautions, matching the ER’s own “Caution” labels.
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 Benefit- or Risk-Modifying Factor is surfaced as a gate or side effect; barrier-defect disease appears as a contraindication because the ER lists it in the populations-who-should-avoid list.
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.	🟢	The QRS carries no PMIDs, no NCT identifiers, no author names and no brand names.
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.	🟢	Flat, declarative register matching the ER; phrases such as “the cancer warning is unresolved” mirror the ER conclusion’s “genuine rather than settled”.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Targets, cadence and protocol values are concrete and actionable while remaining neutral.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Protocol cells describe the licensed regimen rather than instructing a reader.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperative or prescriptive constructions outside the template’s fixed disclaimer.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No “recommend”, “advise” or equivalent appears anywhere in the document.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronoun occurs in the rendered content.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms retained (e.g. “intertriginous”, “acneiform”) are the ER’s own condition names, which have no plainer equivalent.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Benefit and risk tiers are semicolon-joined noun phrases; gate items are bare facts with no rationale.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed: no direct address anywhere in the body.
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.	🟢	Off-label indications, monitoring thresholds and the unresolved cancer signal are all surfaced rather than smoothed over.
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.	🟢	12-month twice-weekly maintenance and a seven-marker monitoring panel are presented without hedging on effort.
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.	🟢	Optimal functional ranges (e.g. eGFR above 90, potassium 4.0 to 4.5) rather than conventional laboratory limits.
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.	🟢	At-a-glance names both the strongest indication and the unresolved cancer warning, matching the ER’s balance.
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.	🟢	“anti-aging” does not occur; the title carries the ER’s canonical “for Health & Longevity”.
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.	🟢	Route and form are stated as “ointment”, “thin layer”, “application”; no consumer-grade substitutes appear, including in the at-a-glance 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 fixed headings, gate headings, tier labels and column headers are byte-identical to the template.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	All 38 template variable names are present; the repeatable marker_#_* and qualitative_item_# spans are expanded to 7 marker rows and 6 qualitative items.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	The website="evidence_review", website="audit" and website="full_review" spans are untouched; the head, style block and footer are identical to the template apart from the page_title substitution.

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 that feeds the QRS is empty; every benefit tier, risk tier, gate list, monitoring row and qualitative marker has ER 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.	🟢	“Standard induction regimen”, “Proactive maintenance regimen” and “Strength selection” are the ER’s bold protocol labels verbatim; the interaction items reuse the ER’s bold interaction labels.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Time-to-effect labels (“Full eczema response”, “Vitiligo repigmentation”, “Facial psoriasis”) are drawn from the ER’s own wording; marker names match the ER biomarker table verbatim.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji code points occur in the file; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” flag on the lymphoma item 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.	🟢	Every oversized ER section was condensed rather than carried over: 6 benefit sub-sections with magnitudes reduced to one semicolon-joined line, 13 protocol bullets reduced to 3 cells, interaction bullets stripped of mechanism and mitigation.

---

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 comment opens on line 2, immediately after <!doctype html>, and precedes every other comment and element.
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 and closing --- on line 12, preceded only by the “QRS — Metadata” caption line.
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 is duplicated in the 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: "00:02" is quoted, correctly so because the value contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	er_filename: tacrolimus_ointment_2026-0920-2007_Opus_ER.md, matching the source ER’s own filename field.
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 version badge of this guideline.
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: 2026-0920-2229, correctly formatted.
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)	🟢	“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.
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 trailing qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	qrs_filename: tacrolimus_ointment_2026-0920-2007_Opus_QRS.html matches 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 eleven keys; no stray whitespace or unnecessary quoting.

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 &)	🟢	“Tacrolimus Ointment for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet”, with the ampersand correctly encoded.
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	“Tacrolimus Ointment for Health & Longevity”, matching the ER canonical_topic.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	09/20/2026, the correct reformatting of 2026-0920-2229.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	“Opus 5”, matching the frontmatter value.
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 contains only the title and the template’s fixed subline; the ER’s alternate_names list is not carried over.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Compresses the conclusion’s four load-bearing points: the no-atrophy advantage, eczema as the strongest evidence with twice-weekly maintenance, the off-label uses, and the burning/cancer-warning cost.
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.	🟢	Each clause maps to a separate sentence of the ER conclusion (lines 492 to 494).
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “painful mouth lesions” replaces erosive oral lichen planus and “does not thin skin” replaces dermal atrophy, both following the ER conclusion’s own plain wording.
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	🟢	No percentages, risk ratios or confidence intervals appear.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All eight items come from that section: seven from the “Populations who should avoid” list and one from the ultraviolet bullet marked “Absolute contraindication”.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	Complete: immunocompromise, hypersensitivity, pre-malignant/malignant lesion, barrier-defect disease, under-2s, active untreated infection, pregnancy/breastfeeding, ultraviolet therapy.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eight discrete <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.	🟢	ER trailing clauses (“in whom safety and efficacy have not been established”, “where human data are too limited for assessment”, “that can mimic eczema”) are all stripped; no dash-trailing clauses remain.
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).	🟢	Qualifiers retained in condensed parentheses: “(systemic immunosuppression, untreated HIV)”, “(suspected cutaneous T-cell lymphoma)”, “(Netherton syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, erythroderma, graft-versus-host)”, the “under 2 years” threshold and “at the site” site restriction.
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.	🟢	The ER names eight such populations/scenarios and the section is correspondingly populated, not 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.	N/A	The section is not empty, so no absence comment is required.

9. Key Interactions

#	Description	Result	Comments
9.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All seven items are ER interaction bullets from that section.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	The seven “Caution” bullets are carried; the ultraviolet bullet is correctly omitted because it sits in Contraindications, and the live-vaccine bullet is omitted because the ER marks it “No restriction”.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Seven discrete <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.	🟢	Each ER bullet’s “Caution. … Mitigation: …” body is stripped; only the bold label survives, with no dash-trailing text.
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).	🟢	The full CYP3A4-inhibitor drug list and the topical-immunosuppressant list are preserved verbatim, as are the “prescription” and “over-the-counter” qualifiers.
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 interaction bullets use plain comma-separated drug lists, with no ranking symbols.
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 seven such interactions and the section is correspondingly populated, not empty.
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, so no absence comment is required.

10. Protocol

#	Description	Result	Comments
10.1	The section is derived from the ER Protocol section	🟢	All three cells derive from the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets (lines 368, 370 and 376).
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Induction dosing, proactive maintenance dosing and strength selection are the three decision-bearing bullets; the remaining bullets are competing approaches or non-actionable notes.
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 supplies more than three actionable aspects, so all three sets are used and none is left unfilled.
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 substantive ER-derived content; no placeholder text remains.

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	🟢	Full eczema response (3 to 6 weeks), vitiligo repigmentation (6 months) and facial psoriasis separation (day 8) are the three intervals the ER’s “Time to effect” bullet supplies; the 3-day itch/redness figure is carried in the first cell’s sub-line.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Eczema control (High tier, first benefit in the ER) precedes vitiligo repigmentation (High tier) which precedes facial psoriasis (Medium tier).
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 supplies four distinct time-to-effect figures, so 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; the sub-lines add the ER’s site-response and comparator detail.
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’s Practical Considerations section provides explicit time-to-effect data, so the section is correctly retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	All ten items correspond one-to-one to the ER’s benefit sub-headings in tier order.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated: 6 high, 2 medium, 1 low, 1 speculative, matching the ER exactly.
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 item is the ER sub-heading reduced to a bare noun phrase; no magnitude figures, trial descriptions or mechanism survive.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any benefit tier; the ER’s parenthetical glosses and magnitude lines are all removed.
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	The ER populates all four benefit tiers, so no span needs hiding.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All ten items correspond one-to-one to the ER’s risk sub-headings in tier order.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated: 4 high, 2 medium, 3 low, 1 speculative, matching the ER exactly.
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 item is the ER sub-heading as a bare noun phrase; incidence percentages, risk ratios and the case-series detail are all absent.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in any risk tier; the ER’s glosses (e.g. the eczema herpeticum explanation) are removed.
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.	N/A	The ER populates all four risk tiers, so no span needs hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Every marker, target and rationale is taken from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All seven ER biomarkers present: whole-blood tacrolimus trough, eGFR, serum creatinine, serum potassium, total IgE, transepidermal water loss, 25-hydroxyvitamin D.
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.	🟢	“Response at 2 weeks and 6 weeks, then every 3 to 6 months while maintenance dosing continues; annual kidney markers for large-area users”, condensed from ER line 453.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All six items come from the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking” list (lines 467 to 472).
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six are carried verbatim: waking itch intensity, scratch-disturbed nights, burning duration, flare frequency and rescue days, skin texture at lichenified sites, confidence without a topical corticosteroid.

Issues 20/09/2026 22:49

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 20/09/2026 22:41

1. 7.4 — Clinical shorthand in lede: The At-A-Glance phrase “twice-weekly application after clearance” uses “clearance” as clinical shorthand for resolution of the rash; a non-specialist would read it as drug elimination, so a plain-language equivalent is required.

Fixes 20/09/2026 22:41

1. 7.4 — Clinical shorthand in lede: Replaced “after clearance” with “after the rash clears” in the At-A-Glance sentence, removing the clinical shorthand that reads ambiguously as drug elimination. At-A-Glance remains within the 60-word budget at 58 words.

Issues 20/09/2026 22:34

1. 4.2 / 4.3 — CYP3A4 label not verbatim: The Key Interactions item at line 557 reads “Prescription CYP3A4 inhibitors (…)” while the ER bold label (ER line 318) is “CYP3A4 inhibitors, prescription (…)”; every neighbouring gate label is carried verbatim, so the reordering is an unjustified paraphrase.
2. 4.5 — Sheet overruns one A4 page: The populated sheet totals roughly 1,750 px of block height against the ~1,030 px A4 print budget, driven by the decision gates (8 contraindications wrapping to ~17 lines, lines 542-549), the 7-row monitoring table and the 5-line at-a-glance paragraph.

Fixes 20/09/2026 22:34

1. 4.2 / 4.3 — CYP3A4 label restored verbatim: The Key Interactions item was changed from “Prescription CYP3A4 inhibitors (…)” back to the ER’s bold label “CYP3A4 inhibitors, prescription (…)”, matching the verbatim treatment of the neighbouring gate labels.
2. 4.5 — Contraindication items condensed: Five of the eight contraindications were trimmed to fit the one-page budget, removing redundant wording while keeping every named example group (e.g., “Congenital or acquired barrier-defect disease (Netherton syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, generalised erythroderma, cutaneous graft-versus-host disease)” to “Barrier-defect disease (Netherton syndrome, lamellar ichthyosis, erythroderma, graft-versus-host)”).
3. 4.5 — At-a-glance tightened: The lede was shortened from 59 to 56 words by compressing the eczema and cancer-warning clauses, dropping one rendered line from the block.