Audit: QRS - Vesugen for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 01/09/2026 02:13 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	93
Passed	85
Failed	0
N/A	8
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 populated variable traces to an ER passage: at-a-glance to the ER Conclusion (ER 443–447), protocol cells to ER 320–326, time cells to ER 345/351/371, benefit and risk items to the ER H4 headings, gates to ER 268–298, all 12 markers and the cadence to the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success table (ER 397–412), qualitative items to ER 416–421.
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 published human protocol”, “no chronobiology data exist”, “a claim no washout study has tested”, “nothing in the literature supports a perceptible effect within days” all carried over verbatim from ER 322/326/351/371.
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”).	🟢	The “Effects stated to persist beyond dosing” hedge is preserved with its washout caveat; contraindications remain absolute and are not downgraded to cautions.
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 come only from the ER “Populations who should avoid Vesugen” list, Key Interactions only from the ER interaction bullets, Benefits from Expected Benefits, Risks from Potential Risks & Side Effects. No Benefit- or Risk-Modifying Factor is surfaced as a gate.
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 contains no PMIDs, no author citations, no NCT identifiers and no brand names.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	The only attribution (“the institute that created, patented and sells it”) mirrors ER 445; no named individual, journal or vendor is added.

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.	🟢	Sober, single-source-sceptical framing throughout, matching the ER’s own register.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Tiered benefits/risks, concrete biomarker targets and an actionable cadence give the reader the material to decide, without editorialising.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is stated as findings and protocol descriptions, not instructions.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No imperatives; gates are presented as ER-derived facts.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No occurrence of “recommend”, “advise”, “should” in the QRS body.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronoun appears anywhere in the file.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms retained are biomarker names and ER benefit/risk headings that cannot be renamed under 4.3; elsewhere the ER’s plain glosses are used.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Gate items, benefit and risk items are reduced to key facts; sub-cells run one or two clauses.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed by a full-file scan for “you/your/we/our”: no matches.
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.	🟢	Certificate-of-analysis gating, batch documentation and structural imaging 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.	🟢	Carotid intima–media thickness, pulse-wave velocity and a 12-marker panel are presented without hedging on cost or inconvenience.
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 simplification toward a mass-market register; the monitoring set alone exceeds general-population expectations.
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 foregrounds the supply-channel and single-source problems, which are the decisive facts for a self-sourcing longevity reader.
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” or “antiaging”; the document uses “biological-age drift”, “cellular ageing”, “vascular age”.
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.	🟢	“capsules”, “subcutaneous”, “sublingual”, “hypersensitivity”, “endotoxin-contaminated” are used; no colloquial or consumer-grade substitutions appear.

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 present and byte-identical to the template (QRS lines 445, 493, 544, 571, 591, 636, 659, 663–665, 847); visible tier labels “Low: “ and “Speculative: “ intact at lines 550/558 and 642/649.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	Programmatic set comparison against the template: all 34 singleton variables present, plus the repeatable marker_#_* rows instantiated 1–12 and qualitative_item_# instantiated 1–6. No template variable missing.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	Normalised structural diff against the template shows only whitespace, the four style="display: none" additions permitted by 12.5/13.5, and legitimate row repetition. The website="evidence_review", website="audit" and website="full_review" spans are untouched.

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 mapped to a QRS variable is empty; the empty High/Medium benefit and risk tiers are governed by 12.5/13.5 instead.
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 course (Russian supplement protocol)”, “Time of day”, “Competing approach — subcutaneous research vials”, “Time to effect”, “Course-based, not lifelong”, “Cycling” and all seven contraindication labels reproduce the ER bold labels verbatim.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	No label was reworded or coined; the only removals are the trailing em-dash glosses stripped under 8.4/9.4.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	Full-file scan finds no emoji; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” markers on two headings were 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 section is condensed to the per-section budget: benefits and risks are single semicolon-joined lines per tier, gate items are one-liners, and monitoring “why” cells are single clauses at 9pt.

---

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, ahead of every other comment and of <html>.
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, closing --- on line 13; the “QRS — Metadata (invisible, parsed by audit tooling)” text on line 2 precedes the opening delimiter.
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.	🟢	Contained entirely within the HTML comment; no metadata value is repeated in the header, body or footer.
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.	🟢	All values trimmed; 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: vesugen_2026-0831-2226_Opus_ER.md, matching the ER’s own filename frontmatter field.
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: 26.7.02, matching the version badge at the top of 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: 2026-0901-0154, 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]”	🟢	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 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]”	🟢	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 context-window or tier qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	Line 9: qrs_filename: vesugen_2026-0831-2226_Opus_QRS.html, matching 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 nine keys including git_user and git_issue; no stray whitespace or superfluous 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 &)	🟢	Line 22: Vesugen for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet, matching ER canonical_topic: Vesugen for Health & Longevity with the ampersand encoded.
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: Vesugen for Health & Longevity.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	Line 421: 09/01/2026, the correct MM/DD/YYYY rendering of 2026-0901-0154.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	Line 425: Opus 5, identical to 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.	🟢	The header block (lines 415–428) is structurally identical to the template; the ER’s alternate_names (KED, Lys-Glu-Asp, T-38, Vezugen) do not appear.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Compresses all three ER conclusion paragraphs (ER 443–447) into the mechanism plausibility, the single-source uncontrolled human record, and the supply-channel hazard.
7.2	[at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words	🟢	59 words, verified programmatically on the extracted span text.
7.3	Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER.	🟢	Sentence 1 → ER 443; sentence 2 first clause → ER 443, second clause → ER 445; sentence 3 → ER 447.
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronym appears; “three-part protein fragment”, “blood-vessel health”, “laboratory dishes”, “comparison groups” are all non-specialist terms.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No study name, year, sample size or p-value; only the generic “small studies without comparison groups”.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numeric result of any kind in the span.

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 Vesugen” list at ER 284–298.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All seven ER avoid-populations are present and nothing outside that list was added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Seven <li> elements inside the stop_items span, QRS lines 574–586.
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.	🟢	Every ER rationale clause is stripped: the malignancy item drops “— the compound’s proliferative and senescence-suppressing actions have never been tested against tumour biology”; pregnancy, age, transplant, hypersensitivity and certificate items are reduced to the bare label.
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 5-year malignancy window and the untreated pre-cancerous lesion are retained; the renal/hepatic parenthetical keeps both thresholds (< 30 mL/min/1.73 m², Child-Pugh Class C), trimmed only of the redundant words “severe liver failure”.
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 contraindication bullets use 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 section is populated, and correctly so — the ER names seven 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 eight items map to the interaction bullets at ER 268–282.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All eight ER interaction bullets present; none duplicates a contraindication.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Eight <li> elements inside the caution_items span, QRS lines 594–626.
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.	🟢	Every “Caution/Monitor” grading, mechanism sentence and “Mitigation:” clause from the ER is stripped; the “— blood thinners” and “statins — cholesterol-lowering drugs” glosses are removed as required.
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 eight drug/supplement example lists are preserved in full, including the italicised Ginkgo biloba rendered as <em>Ginkgo biloba</em>.
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 no ranking notation inside parentheses.
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 section is populated, and correctly so — the ER names eight 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 the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets at ER 320, 322 and 326.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Dose and course length, timing relative to food, and the competing injectable route are the three decision-bearing bullets; the remaining ER bullets (half-life, sex, age, genetics, baseline markers) are modifiers rather than actions.
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 mentions more than three actionable aspects; 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 cells carry substantive ER-derived content; no placeholder or empty-state 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	🟢	Onset at course completion (ER 371), the discrete 10–30 day course structure (ER 345) and persistence beyond dosing (ER 351) are the ER’s three temporal findings; withdrawal and tapering carry no timing content (“none reported”, “not applicable”).
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Ordered from the onset of the peripheral-blood-flow benefit — the highest-graded (Low tier) outcome and the one the vascular series measured — through course structure to the untested persistence claim.
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 temporal aspects exist in the ER; 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 cells carry ER-derived content, with the ER’s bold labels reused verbatim.
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 an explicit “Time to effect” bullet at ER 371, so the section is correctly retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	Both populated tiers reproduce the ER H4 headings from Expected Benefits (ER 144–194).
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present at QRS lines 546–564.
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 tier is a semicolon-joined list of the ER’s own headings; every Magnitude: paragraph, sample size, citation and “developer-affiliated” note is stripped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses appear in either benefit tier; the ER’s “⚠️ Conflicted” marker on the hypoxia benefit is also 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.	🟢	The ER reports no High and no Medium benefit; both spans carry style="display: none" and no empty-state text (QRS lines 546–547). All five Low and all five Speculative items are present.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	Both populated tiers reproduce the ER H4 headings from Potential Risks & Side Effects (ER 226–250).
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present at QRS lines 638–653.
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.	🟢	The purity, active-content and endotoxin figures at ER 230 and the ER 236 magnitude note are all stripped; only the heading-level facts remain.
13.4	Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses in either risk tier; the “⚠️ Conflicted” marker on the oxidant-shift risk is 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.	🟢	The ER reports no High and no Medium risk; both spans carry style="display: none" and no empty-state text (QRS lines 638–639). Both Low and all three Speculative items are present.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Table content matches the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table (ER 399–412) row for row.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 12 ER rows present with names, targets and rationales carried over verbatim: apolipoprotein B, lipoprotein(a), hs-CRP, fasting insulin, HbA1c, complete blood count with differential, homocysteine, home blood pressure, carotid intima–media thickness, ankle–brachial index, carotid–femoral pulse-wave velocity, eGFR.
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.	🟢	QRS lines 837–841 reproduce the ER 397 cadence: four weeks for blood count and inflammatory markers, full panel at three months, then six to twelve months, structural imaging every one to two years.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	All six items map to the ER’s “Qualitative markers worth tracking alongside the laboratory set” list at ER 416–421.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six ER qualitative markers are present in ER order: exercise tolerance and recovery, walking distance before calf pain, cold extremities and colour return, sexual function, afternoon energy and cognitive clarity, sleep quality and morning restedness.

Issues 01/09/2026 02:13

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 01/09/2026 02:04

1. 1.1 — Dose unit drops “peptide complex”: [action_1_value] (line 452) states “1–2 capsules of 0.1 mg”, but the ER specifies “0.1 mg of peptide complex” (ER line 320) and warns that the capsule is “a peptide complex on a carrier rather than pure tripeptide” (ER line 364), so the bare figure asserts a unit the ER does not support.
2. 2.7 — Unglossed jargon in Protocol sub: [action_3_sub] (lines 484–485) uses “lyophilised” and “intraperitoneal” without the plain-language glosses the ER supplies in the same sentence (ER line 322: “lyophilised (freeze-dried)”, “intraperitoneal (abdominal-cavity)”).

Fixes 01/09/2026 02:04

1. 1.1 — Dose unit restored: [action_1_value] changed from “1–2 capsules of 0.1 mg” to “1–2 capsules of 0.1 mg peptide complex”, matching the ER’s stated unit and its warning that the capsule is a complex on a carrier, not pure tripeptide.
2. 2.7 — Jargon replaced with ER glosses: In [action_3_sub], “lyophilised” became “freeze-dried” and “intraperitoneal dosing” became “abdominal-cavity dosing”, using the plain-language terms the ER supplies for both.

Issues 01/09/2026 01:57

1. 9.4 — Em-dash glosses left in interaction items: Two [caution_items] retain content after an em-dash — line 594 “Antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs — blood thinners (aspirin, clopidogrel, apixaban, warfarin)” and line 622 “Other interventions (statins — cholesterol-lowering drugs, sauna, blood-flow-restriction training)” — which item 9.4 requires to be stripped.
2. 2.7 — Unexplained jargon in Qualitative Assessment: Line 855 uses “Claudication distance” without the ER’s plain-language gloss “(how far someone walks before calf pain begins)”, leaving specialist jargon unexplained in a section with no parenthetical-stripping rule.

Fixes 01/09/2026 01:57

1. 9.4 — Em-dash glosses stripped from interactions: Changed “Antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs — blood thinners (aspirin, clopidogrel, apixaban, warfarin)” to “Antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs (aspirin, clopidogrel, apixaban, warfarin)”, and “Other interventions (statins — cholesterol-lowering drugs, sauna, blood-flow-restriction training)” to “Other interventions (statins, sauna, blood-flow-restriction training)”.
2. 2.7 — Claudication jargon replaced: Qualitative Assessment item 2 changed from “Claudication distance, where peripheral disease is present” to “Walking distance before calf pain begins, where peripheral disease is present”, restoring the ER’s plain-language sense.