evipedia.aidev
← Back to Review

Audit: QRS - L-Ergothioneine for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 10/07/2026 04:46 using AI4L / Opus 4.8

Iterations

Summary

Items Count
Total 91
Passed 83
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. 🟢 All QRS content maps to ER passages (protocol, benefits, risks, monitoring, interactions, conclusion).
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. 🟢 Cautious framing preserved (“association rather than proof”, “Theoretical pro-oxidant activity”, “insufficient data in pregnancy and lactation”).
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, benefits, and risks are drawn from their matching ER sections.
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, NCTs, expert names, or brands appear in the QRS; example drug names match ER line 259.
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. 🟢 Objective, evidence-forward tone consistent with the ER.
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 information, not prescriptions.
2.4 The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice 🟢 No directive medical advice; footer disclaimer present.
2.5 The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising” 🟢 Content is presented as facts, not recommendations.
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 throughout.
2.8 Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner 🟢 Compact, single-page presentation.
2.9 It DOES NOT address the reader directly 🟢 No direct 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 targets the proactive 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. 🟢 Protocol and monitoring detail assume a willing, proactive reader.
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 written for 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. 🟢 Weighting reflects the proactive 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. 🟢 Uses “longevity” and “healthy aging”; no “anti-aging”.
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 clinical.

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 intact and unmodified.
3.2 All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS. 🟢 All expected data-qrs-var spans are present.
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” N/A No source ER section mapped to the QRS is empty.
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. 🟢 Row/cell labels align with the ER (biomarker names, tier labels).
4.3 Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented. 🟢 Labels are faithful to the 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; color conveyed via CSS.
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 is 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 the first element after the 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 — (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. 🟢 Metadata sits in an 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 are trimmed; only duration (contains colon) is quoted.
5.5 The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]” 🟢 er_filename: l_ergothioneine_2026-0710-0342_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]” 🟢 qrs_prompt_version: 26.7.02.
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: 2026-0710-0433.
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.
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.
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 + version, no qualifier.
5.12 The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]” 🟢 qrs_filename: l_ergothioneine_2026-0710-0342_Opus_QRS.html.
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. 🟢 Frontmatter values are clean and consistently quoted.

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 &) 🟢 Title: “L-Ergothioneine for Health & Longevity - Quick Reference Sheet”.
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: “L-Ergothioneine for Health & Longevity”.
6.3 [header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY] 🟢 2026-0710-0433 → 07/10/2026.
6.4 [header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname] 🟢 header_subline_model: Opus 4.8.
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, date, and required model attribution.

7. At-A-Glance Section

# Description Result Comments
7.1 [at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section 🟢 Condenses the ER Conclusion (lines 401–405).
7.2 [at_a_glance] is no longer than 60 words 🟢 57 words.
7.3 Every fact in [at_a_glance] is supported by a distinct passage in the ER. 🟢 Each claim traces to the Conclusion.
7.4 It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead 🟢 Plain-language wording; no acronyms.
7.5 It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values) 🟢 No trials cited.
7.6 It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results 🟢 No effect sizes or statistics.

8. Contraindications

# Description Result Comments
8.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from ER lines 255–269.
8.2 [stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER 🟢 Pregnancy/breastfeeding, advanced CKD, hypersensitivity — from ER line 269.
8.3 Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Each item is an <li>.
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 are concise with 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). 🟢 eGFR <30 mL/min/1.73 m² threshold 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. N/A The ER contraindications use no ranking notation.
8.7 If no [stop_items] are present the section is left empty N/A Contraindications are present.

9. Key Interactions

# Description Result Comments
9.1 The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section 🟢 Derived from ER line 259.
9.2 [caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications 🟢 OCTN1 substrate/inhibitor interaction; no overlap with contraindications.
9.3 Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li> 🟢 Item is an <li>.
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 substrate/inhibitor drug lists 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. N/A No ranking notation in the ER interaction bullet.
9.7 If no [caution_items] are present the section is left empty N/A A caution item is present.

10. Protocol

# Description Result Comments
10.1 The section is derived from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Derived from ER Therapeutic Protocol (lines 287–309).
10.2 The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section 🟢 Standard Dose, Timing & Frequency, and Source.
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 sets carry meaningful 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 🟢 Health Benefits, Blood & Tissue Levels, Acute Effect — from ER line 338.
11.2 The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit 🟢 Ordered from primary health benefit to acute effect.
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 time-to-effect aspects are present.
11.4 All used [time_#label], [time#value], [time#_sub] items are filled with meaningful content derived from the ER. 🟢 All three sets carry meaningful ER-derived 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 provides 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 149–193).
12.2 Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative] 🟢 All four 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. 🟢 Benefit items are terse condensations of ER headings.
12.4 Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content carried through.
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 (ER has no High tier).

13. Risks

# Description Result Comments
13.1 The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section 🟢 Derived from ER lines 211–239.
13.2 Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative] 🟢 All four 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. 🟢 Risk items are terse condensations of ER headings.
13.4 Parenthetical content — including frequencies, severity grades, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved. 🟢 No parenthetical content carried through.
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 (ER has only Low and Speculative).

14. Monitoring

# Description Result Comments
14.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from ER Monitoring Protocol (lines 358–372).
14.2 All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All five markers listed: whole-blood ergothioneine, hs-CRP, eGFR, ALT, CBC.
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 line 362.

15. Qualitative Assessment

# Description Result Comments
15.1 The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section 🟢 Derived from the ER qualitative markers (lines 376–379).
15.2 All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed 🟢 All four qualitative markers listed.

Issues 10/07/2026 04:46

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 10/07/2026 04:39

  1. 1.1 — Tempeh mislabeled as richest source: action_3_sub (QRS line 472) lists tempeh among “the richest food sources,” but the ER (Sourcing and Quality, line 333) states mushrooms are the richest sources “with tempeh and some organ meats providing smaller amounts,” so the claim is not literally supported.

Fixes 10/07/2026 04:39

  1. 1.1 — Tempeh mislabeled as richest source: Changed action_3_sub from “Oyster, king oyster, and shiitake mushrooms and tempeh are the richest food sources” to “Oyster, king oyster, and shiitake mushrooms are the richest sources; tempeh provides less” to match the ER, which lists tempeh among smaller-amount sources.