Audit: QRS - Acetyl Tetrapeptide-2 for Skin Rejuvenation

Audit conducted on 23/06/2026 02:02 using AI4L / Opus 4.8

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 91
Passed 86
Failed 0
N/A 4
Pass Rate 100.00%
  • Total = Passed + Failed + N/A
  • Pass Rate = Passed / (Passed + Failed) × 100
  • N/A items are excluded from the pass rate calculation

1. General Rules

# Description Result Comments
1.1 Every claim, magnitude, label, recommendation, and statement in the QRS is literally supported by content in the source ER. 🟢 All visible content (at-a-glance, protocol, benefits, risks, monitoring, qualitative, gates) traces to ER sections.
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. 🟢 QRS preserves “precautionary”, “Theoretical immune-signaling effects”, “Speculative” framing consistent with ER.
1.3 The QRS never strengthens an ER claim (e.g., “not formally studied” → “not required”) or softens one (e.g., “do not use during pregnancy” → “use with caution during pregnancy”). 🟢 Pregnancy contraindication kept precautionary matching ER line 254; no strengthening/softening detected.
1.4 The QRS does not relabel an ER fact under a different decision category. A “Benefit-Modifying Factor” from ER section is not surfaced as a “Caution”; a “Risk-Modifying Factor” is not surfaced as a “Side Effect”; etc. 🟢 Contraindications and Key Interactions both drawn from the ER “Key Interactions & Contraindications” section without recategorization.
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, expert names, or trial citations appear in the QRS.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 No attributions introduced.

2. Focus, Tone & Audience

# Description Result Comments
2.1 The QRS follows the tone of the ER, which is determined by the ER’s own language, phrasing, and framing. 🟢 Cautious, evidence-graded tone of the ER is preserved.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Plain-language, objective framing throughout.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 Presents evidence and options, not directives.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 Footer disclaimer present; body avoids clinical advice.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 Protocol cells describe actions faithfully from ER without recommending language.
2.6 The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance 🟢 No “you/your” addressing the reader anywhere in the QRS.
2.7 The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon 🟢 Plain phrasing used throughout.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Content is tightly condensed to fit the card budgets.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 No direct second-person address present.
2.10 The target audience is health- and longevity-oriented adults who are risk-aware, proactive, and actively seeking to optimize health or apply the intervention under review. 🟢 Framing matches a proactive skin-longevity audience.
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. 🟢 Twice-daily multi-week protocol framing reflects this audience.
2.12 The document is NOT written for the general population, who are unwilling to employ lifestyle and behavioral changes or follow protocols that may be inconvenient, costly, or require effort. 🟢 Tone assumes an engaged, effort-willing reader.
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. 🟢 “Low-risk, lightly-evidenced add-on” weighting reflects the discerning audience.
2.14 The document’s own voice frames usage in longevity terms, not “anti-aging” (e.g., “anti-aging clinics”, “anti-aging community”, “anti-aging medicine”). Proper names that contain “anti-aging” (e.g., “American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine”) are quoted verbatim. 🟢 No “anti-aging” usage; “aging skin” / firming framing used.
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. 🟢 Terminology is formal and scientific.

3. Template Integrity

# Description Result Comments
3.1 The following labels and headings on the QRS are fixed and not modified: Card and section headings: “Protocol”, “Time to effect”, “Benefits”, “Risk & Side Effects”, “Monitoring”, “Qualitative Assessment”; Gate headings: “Contraindications”, “Key Interactions”; Tier labels: “High”, “Medium”, “Low”, “Speculative”; Table column headers in Monitoring: “Marker”, “Target”, “Why” 🟢 All fixed headings and labels are present and unmodified.
3.2 All “” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All 48 template spans present.
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 Unaddressed/hidden spans (time_2/3, benefits_high, risks_high/medium) left intact.

4. Formatting

# Description Result Comments
4.1 When the source ER section is empty, the QRS uses the ER’s own empty-state phrasing verbatim. Typical phrasings are “None documented in human trials to date” and “Not formally studied” N/A No populated ER section is empty requiring empty-state phrasing; absent tiers are hidden via display:none per items 12.5/13.5.
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. 🟢 Benefit/risk tier labels and protocol labels match ER wording.
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Labels preserved from ER.
4.4 The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels. 🟢 No emoji indicators in the rendered content.
4.5 The QRS is designed to render on one A4 page. Any section that has more content in the ER than fits the per-section budget is condensed by the LLM, not extended onto a second page. 🟢 Content condensed; unused cells hidden to fit one page.

5. Metadata

# Description Result Comments
5.1 The metadata is placed inside a single HTML comment that is the first element after “<!doctype html>” and before any other comment, head, or body content. 🟢 Metadata comment is the first element after doctype (lines 2-14).
5.2 Inside that HTML comment the YAML block is delimited by a line “—” opening and a line “—” closing. Text before the opening “—” is permitted but is not parsed as YAML. 🟢 YAML delimited by — at lines 3 and 13.
5.3 The metadata is not visible in any rendered view of the QRS and is not surfaced by any other element on the sheet. 🟢 Enclosed in HTML comment; not rendered.
5.4 All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading or trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless the value contains a colon, bracket, or leading special character that requires YAML quoting. 🟢 Values trimmed; only “duration” quoted (contains colon).
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 er_filename: acetyl_tetrapeptide_2_skin_2026-0623-0113_Opus_ER.md (line 4).
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: 26.5.18 (line 5) matches QRS.md version.
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: 2026-0623-0113 (line 6).
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 (line 7).
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.
5.10 The full name of the AI used to create the document is stated as “qrs_creator_ai_fullname: [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]” 🟢 qrs_creator_ai_fullname: Opus 4.8 (line 8).
5.11 The full name of the AI consists of the [qrs_creator_ai_nickname] and the model version number and no additional qualifier (e.g., Opus 4.6, Sonnet 3.2, Grok 4.5, Gemini 3.1, ChatGPT 5.4) 🟢 “Opus 4.8” — nickname plus version, no qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 qrs_filename: acetyl_tetrapeptide_2_skin_2026-0623-0113_Opus_QRS.html (line 9).
5.13 All frontmatter values are trimmed: no leading or trailing whitespace, no surrounding quotes unless the value contains a colon, bracket, or leading special character that requires YAML quoting. 🟢 Values clean and consistent.

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., &amp; for &) 🟢 “Acetyl Tetrapeptide-2 for Skin Rejuvenation - Quick Reference Sheet” (line 22); no special chars to encode.
6.2 [header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., &amp; for &) 🟢 header_topic: “Acetyl Tetrapeptide-2 for Skin Rejuvenation” (line 417) matches canonical_topic.
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 “06/23/2026” (line 421) from 2026-0623-0113.
6.4 [header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname] 🟢 “Opus 4.8” (line 425).
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 title and standard subline; no extras.

7. At-A-Glance Section

# Description Result Comments
7.1 [at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section 🟢 Summarizes Conclusion (lines 380-382): mechanism plausibility, cell-level confirmation, thin/company-generated human proof, barrier uncertainty, low-risk add-on.
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 51 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Each clause maps to a Conclusion passage.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 No acronyms; “add-on”, “lab-grown cells”, “thymus gland” are plain.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) 🟢 No trial names, years, or sample sizes cited.
7.6 It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results 🟢 No effect sizes or statistics present.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from ER “Populations who should avoid it” (line 254).
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 Allergy and pregnancy/breastfeeding precaution both captured.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Two <li> items (lines 542-543).
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. Just the key fact. 🟢 Items concise; no em-dash trailing clauses.
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. 🟢 “(precautionary; no pregnancy-specific safety data)” preserved concisely.
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. 🟢 No ranking notation present; nothing to normalize.
8.7 If no [stop_items] are present the section is left empty N/A [stop_items] are present.

9. Key Interactions

# Description Result Comments
9.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from the ER interactions bullets (lines 244-252).
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 Lists prescription, OTC, layered actives, and procedural interactions; allergy/pregnancy excluded as contraindications.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Four <li> items (lines 551-554).
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. Just the key fact. 🟢 Items concise; no trailing dash clauses.
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. 🟢 Example drugs (tretinoin, corticosteroids, glycolic/salicylic acid, benzoyl peroxide, microneedling/peels/laser) preserved.
9.6 When the ER uses ranking notation inside parens (e.g., “>” for severity ordering) that depends on an explanatory phrase to interpret, normalize the items to a plain comma-separated list rather than carrying through the bare symbol. 🟢 No ranking notation; nothing to normalize.
9.7 If no [caution_items] are present the section is left empty N/A [caution_items] are present.

10. Protocol

# Description Result Comments
10.1 The section is derived from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Derived from ER Therapeutic Protocol (lines 272-291).
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Form & Concentration, Frequency, Layering — the key actionable levers.
10.3 If less that three distinct actionable implementation aspects are mentioned in the ER the unused sets are left empty and made invisible, not filled with placeholder text or empty-state phrasing. N/A Three distinct actionable aspects are present.
10.4 All used [action_#label], [action#value], [action#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER Protocol section. 🟢 All three action cells filled with ER-derived content.

11. Time to Effect

# Description Result Comments
11.1 The three sets of [time] items cover the three most important time-to-effect aspects from the ER 🟢 ER provides one time-to-effect aspect (4–8 weeks visible firmness, line 319); time_1 used, time_2/3 hidden.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Single benefit (firmness) maps to the single time cell.
11.3 If less that three distinct time-to-effect aspects are mentioned in the ER the unused sets are left empty and made invisible, not filled with placeholder text or empty-state phrasing. 🟢 time_2 and time_3 cells set to display:none and left empty (lines 492-513).
11.4 All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER. 🟢 “Visible Firmness / 4–8 weeks” filled from ER.
11.5 If the ER does not provide any information on time to effect, the section is removed completely from the Protocol Panel N/A The ER does provide time-to-effect information.

12. Benefits

# Description Result Comments
12.1 The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section 🟢 Derived from ER Expected Benefits (lines 134-173).
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four variables present; high hidden (no high-tier benefit).
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 benefit names only.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parentheticals or effect sizes carried over.
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 set to display:none (no high-tier benefit in ER).

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 Derived from ER Potential Risks & Side Effects (lines 193-222).
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four variables present; high and medium hidden.
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 risk names only.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parentheticals carried over.
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 and risks_medium set to display:none (no such tiers in ER).

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from ER Monitoring table (lines 349-353).
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All three ER biomarkers (Vitamin D 25-OH, Vitamin C, hs-CRP) listed with targets.
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. 🟢 Cadence populated from ER lines 347-348.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from ER “Qualitative markers to track” (lines 355-360).
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All four qualitative markers listed (firmness, smoothness/radiance, local tolerance, satisfaction).

Issues 23/06/2026 02:02

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.