Audit: QRS - Thioctic Acid for Hair Regrowth

Audit conducted on 24/08/2026 06:34 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 cells trace to ER lines 323/325/329; time cells to ER lines 357/375; benefits/risks to the ER Expected Benefits and Potential Risks & Side Effects headings; gates to ER lines 274–301; monitoring table and cadence to ER lines 403–416; qualitative items to ER lines 420–424.
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 established target; track change from the individual’s own baseline” (marker_10_target) is carried verbatim from ER line 416.
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 preserved; the “unless the treating oncologist has cleared it” qualifier is retained rather than dropped or softened.
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 item from ER Benefit-Modifying Factors or Risk-Modifying Factors appears in the gates; the HLA carrier item comes from the ER Populations who should avoid list (ER line 297), not from the risk-modifying bullet.
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, NCT IDs, author names or brand names anywhere in the QRS; all named drugs are generic names present in ER lines 274–292.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions present beyond the template’s own AI4L/model subline.

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.	🟢	Reserved, evidence-gap-forward framing mirrors the ER Conclusion.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Presents what is and is not known and what to track, without hedging or moralising.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	No imperatives; protocol cells are descriptive (“Clinicians extrapolating…” reduced to “Standard oral regimen / 600 mg once daily”).
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No prescriptive verbs in the QRS’s own voice.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No instances of “recommend”, “advise”, or “should” in the QRS’s own voice.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the file.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms used are the ER’s own and are needed for the decision gates; the At-A-Glance is jargon-free.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Every gate, benefit and risk item is reduced to its key fact.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — no “you”/”your”.
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.	🟢	Ten-marker monitoring panel and functional ranges presuppose a proactive, testing-oriented 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.	🟢	Phototrichogram tracking, timed dosing and repeat lab panels are retained without simplification.
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.	🟢	Content depth is well beyond consumer-label level.
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 states the outcome-data gap as decisive against agents with hair-count evidence — the comparison this audience makes.
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” in the file.
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.	🟢	“Gastrointestinal upset”, “scalp and skin irritation”, “insulin secretagogues” used in the body; the At-A-Glance’s plain register is required by 7.4 and carried from the ER Conclusion.

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 verified verbatim at lines 444, 484, 528, 548, 565, 588, 610, 614–616, 750 and in the tier <strong> labels.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	69 spans present = 34 fixed template spans + 30 marker spans (10 rows × 3) + 5 qualitative item spans.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	Diff against the template shows changes confined to the metadata block, page_title and the content spans; the entire <style> block, footer disclaimer and website= spans are byte-identical.

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 section of the source ER is empty; the vacant Benefits High/Medium tiers are governed by item 12.5, which mandates display: none rather than 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.	🟢	“Standard oral regimen”, “Timing”, “Alternative topical approach” (ER lines 323, 325, 329) and “Assessment window before stopping” (ER line 357) are carried verbatim.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	All ten monitoring marker names match the ER table (ER lines 407–416) verbatim; time_1/time_2 labels split the ER’s single “Time to effect” bullet using the ER’s own terms “shaft-diameter” and “density” (ER line 375).
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji characters in the file; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” marker (ER line 154) 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.	🟢	Each section is condensed to its per-section minimum: benefits and risks reduced to bare heading names, gate items stripped of rationale, At-A-Glance held to 58 words.

---

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 <!doctype html> on 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 descriptive text sits on line 2.
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 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: "00:03" is quoted, correctly, because it contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	Line 4: er_filename: thioctic_acid_hair_2026-0824-0442_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: 26.7.02, 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)	🟢	Line 6: 2026-0824-0627.
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: 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]”	🟢	Line 8: 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 actual filename 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.	🟢	Confirmed for 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 &)	🟢	Line 22: “Thioctic Acid for Hair Regrowth - Quick Reference Sheet”; no characters requiring entity encoding.
6.2	[header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., & for &)	🟢	Line 417: “Thioctic Acid for Hair Regrowth”, matching ER frontmatter line 8.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: 08/24/2026, correctly derived from 2026-0824-0627.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	Line 425: 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.	🟢	Header block (lines 415–428) is byte-identical to the template apart from the three variable spans.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Compresses ER lines 444–448 into what the compound is, what evidence exists, what the safety picture is, and what the comparison yields.
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 ER lines 444, 446 and 448 respectively.
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	“nerve-damage medicine” replaces diabetic neuropathy; “stomach upset” replaces gastrointestinal adverse events; no acronyms present.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial name, year, n, or p-value.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numeric effect measure of any kind.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All six items come from the “Populations who should avoid Thioctic Acid” list at ER lines 294–301.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	Complete one-to-one coverage of the ER’s six avoidance populations.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Six <li> elements, lines 551–560.
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 stripped from the pregnancy item (“where safety data are insufficient”) and the paediatric item (“given documented toxicity near 30 mg per kg”); 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).	🟢	The HLA allele identifiers, the “curative-intent … unless the treating oncologist has cleared it” qualifier and the “14 units weekly” threshold are all retained.
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 its contraindication list.
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 does identify such populations and the section is correctly populated.
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 nine items come from the bullet list at ER lines 274–292.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	Nine of the ER’s ten interaction bullets carried; the cytotoxic-chemotherapy bullet (ER line 276) is correctly omitted because it appears as a contraindication.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Nine <li> elements, lines 568–578.
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.	🟢	All mechanism and mitigation sentences from the ER bullets are stripped; each item is the agent class alone.
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).	🟢	All four ER example-drug lists retained; the secretagogue parenthetical is trimmed to the drug names only, as 9.5 permits.
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 its interaction list.
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 identifies ten 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.	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 trace to ER Therapeutic Protocol lines 323, 325 and 329.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Dose, timing and the alternative topical route are the three executable choices; the remaining nine ER bullets are qualifiers on these.
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 contains twelve bullets, so 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 spans populated; e.g. action_1 = “600 mg once daily / Racemic form, extrapolated from the licensed neuropathy indication” (ER line 323).

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	🟢	Shaft diameter (3 months) and density (6–12 months) from ER line 375; assessment window (6 months minimum) from ER line 357.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Shaft diameter first — the only hair endpoint with any human signal in the ER (ER line 158) — then density, then the decision window.
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, 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 spans populated with ER-sourced 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 does provide time-to-effect information (ER lines 357, 375).

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	Items are the ER’s four Low and three Speculative benefit headings (ER lines 154–190).
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present at lines 530–541.
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 bare ER heading; all Magnitude paragraphs, p-values, SMDs and CIs are dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in either benefit tier.
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.	🟢	The ER states no benefit reaches High or Medium (ER lines 146, 150); both spans are empty with style="display: none" at lines 530–531.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	Items are the ER’s eight risk headings across the four tiers (ER lines 210–258).
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated at lines 590–604.
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 bare ER heading; the Hirata-disease explanation, the EFSA incidence figure and the 18 g intoxication detail are all dropped.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in any risk tier.
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	All four ER risk tiers contain items, so no span needs hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Table and cadence trace to ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success lines 403–416.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All ten ER table rows present, with names, targets and rationales carried verbatim.
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.	🟢	Lines 742–744 reproduce the ER’s front-loaded schedule from ER line 403.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Items come from the “Qualitative markers worth tracking” list at ER lines 420–424.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All five ER qualitative markers present verbatim at lines 753–771.

Issues 24/08/2026 06:34

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.