evipedia.aidev
← Back to Review

Audit: QRS - Hypochlorous Acid for Health & Longevity of the ER frontmatter

Audit conducted on 27/06/2026 14:15 using AI4L / Opus 4.8

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 91
Passed 87
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 content traces to the ER (Conclusion, Protocol, Benefits, Risks, Key Interactions, Monitoring).
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 cautious framing (“mixed”, “less proven”, “Speculative” tiers) consistent with the 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”). 🟢 No strengthening or 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/Interactions drawn from ER “Key Interactions & Contraindications”; risks from “Potential Risks & Side Effects”.
1.5 PubMed IDs, study citations, expert names, clinical trial identifiers (NCT*), and brand names appear in the QRS only if they appear in the source ER for the same fact. 🟢 No PMIDs, citations, NCT IDs, or brand names appear in the QRS.
1.6 The QRS does not introduce new attributions. 🟢 No new 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. 🟢 Tone matches the ER’s measured, evidence-graded framing.
2.2 The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging 🟢 Tone is expert yet accessible.
2.3 The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor 🟢 Presents evidence rather than directives.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 No prescriptive advice; descriptive throughout.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 Information is presented, not recommended.
2.6 The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance 🟢 No second-person address.
2.7 The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon 🟢 Plain language with parenthetical clarifications where needed.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Compact, single-page format.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 No direct reader address.
2.10 The target audience is health- and longevity-oriented adults who are risk-aware, proactive, and actively seeking to optimize health or apply the intervention under review. 🟢 Framing fits the proactive 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. 🟢 Consistent with audience assumption.
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. 🟢 Not aimed at the general population.
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. 🟢 Risk/benefit weighting reflects the 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” language present.
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. 🟢 “germ-killing” mirrors the ER’s own plain phrasing; the document otherwise uses clinical terms (re-epithelialization, blepharitis, sensitization).

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 unmodified.
3.2 All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All template spans present (markers and qualitative items expanded to numbered instances).
3.3 Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged 🟢 No unaddressed spans were altered.

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” 🟢 Empty sub-tiers (benefits/risks high) are hidden via display:none rather than filled; no empty-state phrasing misused.
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. 🟢 Protocol labels match ER bold labels (skin/facial spray, eyelid hygiene, wound irrigation).
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Labels derived directly 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 QRS body.
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 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 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; duration quoted because it contains a colon.
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 er_filename: hypochlorous_acid_2026-0627-1233_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).
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: 2026-0627-1233 (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” has nickname plus version, no qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 qrs_filename: hypochlorous_acid_2026-0627-1233_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. 🟢 All values clean and consistently quoted only where required.

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 &) 🟢 “Hypochlorous Acid for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet” (line 22).
6.2 [header_topic] is set to the [canonical_topic] of the ER frontmatter, with HTML entities encoded as needed (e.g., &amp; for &) 🟢 “Hypochlorous Acid for Health & Longevity” (line 417).
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 06/27/2026 (line 421), correctly reformatted from 2026-0627.
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.

7. At-A-Glance Section

# Description Result Comments
7.1 [at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section 🟢 Faithfully condenses the Conclusion (lines 421-423).
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 53 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Each claim maps to the Conclusion.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 No acronyms; plain-language terms used.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) 🟢 No trial citations.
7.6 It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results 🟢 No statistics cited.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from “Populations who should avoid or use caution” (line 286).
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 Hypersensitivity, asthma/fogging, non-ophthalmic eye instillation all present.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Each item is an <li> (lines 542-544).
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. 🟢 Items concise; no trailing dash 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 (shortened or trimmed where needed to fit the one-page budget, but never dropped entirely). 🟢 “(avoid fine-mist/fogging use)” qualifier preserved.
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 in the ER’s contraindication bullets; nothing to normalize.
8.7 If no [stop_items] are present the section is left empty N/A Contraindications are present, so this conditional does not apply.

9. Key Interactions

# Description Result Comments
9.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from the ER interaction bullets (lines 278-280).
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 Topical skincare actives and other antiseptics/cleansers; “no systemic interaction” correctly excluded.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Each item is an <li> (lines 552-553).
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. 🟢 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 (shortened or trimmed where needed to fit the one-page budget, but never dropped entirely). 🟢 Example actives “(vitamin C, alpha- and beta-hydroxy acids, retinoids)” 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 in the ER bullets; nothing to normalize.
9.7 If no [caution_items] are present the section is left empty N/A Key Interactions are present, so this conditional does not apply.

10. Protocol

# Description Result Comments
10.1 The section is derived from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Derived from “Therapeutic Protocol” (lines 310-314).
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Skin/facial spray, eyelid hygiene, wound irrigation — the three ER usage modes.
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 actions exist, so this conditional does not apply.
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 sets populated 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 🟢 The ER provides only two distinct time-to-effect aspects; both are captured.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Immediate antimicrobial action precedes symptomatic benefit, consistent with benefit magnitude.
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. 🟢 Third set empty and hidden via display:none (lines 503-513).
11.4 All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER. 🟢 Both used time sets populated from ER “Time to effect” (line 355).
11.5 If the ER does not provide any information on time to effect, the section is removed completely from the Protocol Panel N/A The ER provides time-to-effect information, so this conditional does not apply.

12. Benefits

# Description Result Comments
12.1 The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section 🟢 Derived from “Expected Benefits” (lines 138-192).
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four tier variables present.
12.3 Items are as concise as possible. No explanations, no elaborations, no effect sizes, no qualifiers, no attributions, no citations, no study details, no mechanistic explanations, etc. Just the key fact. 🟢 Tier items are concise benefit titles only.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical magnitude/effect content 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. 🟢 All four benefit tiers have ER content; none required hiding.

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 Derived from “Potential Risks & Side Effects” (lines 212-254).
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four tier variables present.
13.3 Items are as concise as possible. No explanations, no elaborations, no effect sizes, no qualifiers, no attributions, no citations, no study details, no mechanistic explanations, etc. Just the key fact. 🟢 Tier items are concise risk titles only.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical frequency/grade content 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 (no ER content) set to display:none (line 565).

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from the ER “Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success” table (lines 385-389).
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 HbA1c, CRP, and wound swab/culture — all three table rows listed.
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 with wound-care and self-directed timing (line 629).

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from the ER “Qualitative markers of success” (lines 391-397).
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All five qualitative markers listed (lines 638-650).

Issues 27/06/2026 14:15

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.