Audit: QRS - Nefiracetam for Health & Longevity

Audit conducted on 03/08/2026 19:04 using AI4L / Opus 5

Iterations

Summary

Items	Count
Total	91
Passed	82
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.	🟢	Every span traces to ER text: at-a-glance to the Conclusion, protocol cells to Therapeutic Protocol, time cells to Expected Benefits / Practical Considerations, gates to Key Interactions & Contraindications, tiers to Expected Benefits / Potential Risks & Side Effects, table to Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success.
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.	🟢	Species hedges are carried through (“in animals”, “in dogs”); “appear acceptable” mirrors the ER Conclusion’s “appear acceptable”.
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”).	🟢	All five ER contraindications remain in the stop gate at full strength; no interaction was demoted or promoted.
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 Benefit-Modifying Factors or Risk-Modifying Factors appears in the gates, tiers, or protocol panel.
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, no NCT identifiers, no author names. All drug names in the caution gate are generic and taken from the matching ER interaction bullet; the brand name “Translon” is absent.
1.6	The QRS does not introduce new attributions.	🟢	No attributions of any kind are present.

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, non-promotional register matching the ER’s treatment of an unapproved compound.
2.2	The tone of the QRS is simultaneously expert, accessible, objective, and data-driven, but also empowering and encouraging	🟢	Thresholds and functional ranges are given so the reader can act; framing is neutral rather than discouraging.
2.3	The QRS reads as a trusted, knowledgeable guide rather than a prescriptive doctor	🟢	Content is presented as observed evidence and measurable targets, not as orders.
2.4	The QRS avoids language that implies medical or clinical advice	🟢	No prescriptive verbs; the cadence line states a schedule rather than instructing the reader.
2.5	The QRS “presents information” instead of “providing guidance”, “recommending”, or “advising”	🟢	No instances of “recommend”, “advise”, or “should”.
2.6	The QRS never addresses “the reader” directly — it presents evidence, not guidance	🟢	No second-person pronouns anywhere in the document.
2.7	The QRS is written in plain language, avoiding unnecessary medical jargon	🟢	Technical terms retained are load-bearing (eGFR, CYP3A4, Child-Pugh); the at-a-glance block is fully plain.
2.8	Information is presented in a concise and very compact manner	🟢	Every tier and gate item is reduced to a bare fact; ER rationale, citations, and study detail are stripped.
2.9	It DOES NOT address the reader directly	🟢	Confirmed — 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.	🟢	Reproductive and renal monitoring panels and threshold values 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.	🟢	An 11-marker panel including semen analysis and sensitive-assay estradiol presumes exactly that willingness.
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 and monitoring burden are well beyond general-population framing.
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.	🟢	The at-a-glance block leads with the fact that no trial enrolled healthy adults, which is the decisive point for this 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.	🟢	“anti-aging” does not occur; the header uses “Health & Longevity”.
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.	🟢	Body sections use formal terminology throughout (“Gastrointestinal upset and nausea”, “renal papillary necrosis”); the plain wording in the at-a-glance block is required by 7.4 and mirrors 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 fixed strings verified byte-identical to the template.
3.2	All “…” from the [qrs_template] are present in the the QRS.	🟢	Set comparison against the template returns no missing variable; marker_#_* and qualitative_item_# are correctly expanded into 11 and 6 numbered instances.
3.3	Spans that are not addressed in a checklist item are left unchanged	🟢	The three website= spans and the entire <style> block are byte-identical to the template.

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 ER section mapped into a QRS text field is empty; the one empty tier (Expected Benefits / High) is governed by 12.5 and correctly hidden rather than filled with 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.	🟢	“The supplemental protocol”, “Time of day”, “Choline co-administration” and all six qualitative labels are verbatim ER bold labels.
4.3	Labels are not paraphrased, abbreviated, or invented.	🟢	Protocol, qualitative, and monitoring row labels are taken verbatim; time-to-effect labels are derived from ER wording as section 11 requires.
4.4	The QRS DOES NOT use emoji indicators (no 🟩, 🟥, 🟨, etc.). Color and emphasis are conveyed through CSS and bold labels.	🟢	No emoji code points present; the ER’s tier emojis and the ⚠️ “Conflicted” flags were 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 was condensed against its ER source rather than carried over: gate rationale and severity clauses stripped, drug example lists trimmed, benefit and risk items reduced to bare headings, monitoring “why” cells shortened.

---

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; the comment opens immediately after the doctype.
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 on line 2 precedes the opener.
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 and not repeated anywhere in the 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: "00:04" is quoted, correctly, because it contains a colon.
5.5	The filename of the source ER is stated as “er_filename: [er_filename]”	🟢	er_filename: nefiracetam_2026-0803-1614_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, 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)	🟢	qrs_creation_date: 2026-0803-1834.
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)	🟢	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]”	🟢	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)	🟢	Nickname plus version number only, no qualifier.
5.12	The filename of the document is stated as “qrs_filename: [filename of this document]”	🟢	qrs_filename: nefiracetam_2026-0803-1614_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; no stray whitespace or unnecessary 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 &)	🟢	“Nefiracetam 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., & for &)	🟢	“Nefiracetam for Health & Longevity”.
6.3	[header_subline_date] is set to [qrs_creation_date reformatted as MM/DD/YYYY]	🟢	2026-0803-1834 → “08/03/2026”.
6.4	[header_subline_model] is set to [qrs_creator_ai_fullname]	🟢	“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 carries only the title and the template subline; the ER’s “Also known as” line was not carried over.

7. At-A-Glance Section

#	Description	Result	Comments
7.1	[at_a_glance] is dense, execution-oriented summary of the ER Conclusion section	🟢	Six clauses covering approval status, animal signal, human failure, tolerability, reproductive toxicity, and supply quality — the decision-relevant content of the ER Conclusion.
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 a distinct paragraph of the ER Conclusion.
7.4	It DOES NOT use acronyms or technical classifications that require specialist knowledge, uses plain-language terms instead	🟢	No acronyms; “stomach upset”, “shrunken testes”, “poorer sperm” are plain-language equivalents drawn from the ER Conclusion itself.
7.5	It DOES NOT cite specific trials (names, years, sample sizes, p-values)	🟢	No trial names, years, or sample sizes.
7.6	It DOES NOT cite effect sizes, relative risks, or statistical results	🟢	No numeric results of any kind.

8. Contraindications

#	Description	Result	Comments
8.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All five items come from the ER’s “Populations for whom nefiracetam is contraindicated” list.
8.2	[stop_items] represent the Contraindications from the ER	🟢	All five ER contraindications present, none added.
8.3	Individual [stop_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Five discrete <li> elements inside the span.
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 (“absolute contraindication, on the basis of replicated testicular toxicity…”) and the Watanabe citation were stripped; no trailing dash 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).	🟢	eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m², Child-Pugh Class B or C, CKD stage 3, and the three semen thresholds are all retained; only the explanatory glosses inside the parentheses were removed.
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 contraindication bullets use no ranking notation inside parentheses.
8.7	If no [stop_items] are present the section is left empty	N/A	Five stop items are present.

9. Key Interactions

#	Description	Result	Comments
9.1	The section is derived from the ER Key Interactions & Contraindications section	🟢	All ten items map one-to-one onto the ten ER interaction bullets.
9.2	[caution_items] represent the Key Interactions from the ER, excluding any that are already listed as Contraindications	🟢	All ten ER interactions represented; no overlap with the five contraindications.
9.3	Individual [caution_items] are formatted as <li></li>	🟢	Ten discrete <li> elements inside the span.
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.	🟢	The ER’s “Severity — … Consequence: … Mitigation: …” tails are stripped from every item; no dash clauses remain.
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).	🟢	Every item retains a named example list, trimmed to the leading two to four drugs to fit the page budget; none was dropped entirely.
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 interaction bullets use plain comma-separated example lists, with no ranking notation.
9.7	If no [caution_items] are present the section is left empty	N/A	Ten caution items are present.

10. Protocol

#	Description	Result	Comments
10.1	The section is derived from the ER Protocol section	🟢	All three cells derive from the ER Therapeutic Protocol bullets.
10.2	The three sets of [action] items cover the three most important actionable implementation aspects from the ER Protocol section	🟢	Dose, dose timing, and choline co-administration are the three executable levers in the ER protocol; the remaining bullets 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 supplies 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 spans populated; the sub-line for action 1 preserves the ER’s statement that neither dosing approach stands as the default.

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	🟢	Apathy (≥4 weeks), post-infarction cognition (8–12 weeks), and the ≥7-day minimum for any measurable effect.
11.2	The sets are picked and ordered by the magnitude of the related benefit	🟢	Medium-tier apathy benefit first, Low-tier vascular cognitive impairment second, general onset threshold last.
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	The ER supplies three or more time-to-effect aspects; 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 and traceable to Expected Benefits and Practical Considerations.
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 the section is retained.

12. Benefits

#	Description	Result	Comments
12.1	The section is derived from the ER Expected Benefits section	🟢	Tiers map directly onto the ER’s High / Medium / Low / Speculative headings.
12.2	Key variables are [benefits_high], [benefits_medium], [benefits_low], [benefits_speculative]	🟢	All four spans 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.	🟢	Each item is the bare ER sub-heading; magnitude paragraphs and the ⚠️ Conflicted flags were dropped.
12.4	Parenthetical content — including effect sizes, sample notes, mechanistic hints, and example studies — is stripped, NOT preserved.	🟢	No parentheses remain in any benefit item.
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’s High tier carries no benefit, and benefits_high is correctly set to style="display: none" with no empty-state text.

13. Risks

#	Description	Result	Comments
13.1	The section is derived from the ER Potential Risks & Side Effects section	🟢	All nine items map onto the ER’s tiered risk sub-headings.
13.2	Key variables are [risks_high], [risks_medium], [risks_low], [risks_speculative]	🟢	All four spans present and populated.
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 sub-heading; magnitude paragraphs and citations were 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 item.
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 carry items, so no span needed hiding.

14. Monitoring

#	Description	Result	Comments
14.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Rows are taken from the ER Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success biomarker table.
14.2	All measurable/quantifiable biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All 11 ER biomarkers present, in ER order, with targets reproduced 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.	🟢	Baseline panel, 12-week and 6-monthly reproductive and renal repeats, and liver enzymes at each draw — matching the ER’s cadence paragraph.

15. Qualitative Assessment

#	Description	Result	Comments
15.1	The section is derived from the ER Monitoring section	🟢	Items come from the qualitative marker list in Monitoring Protocol & Defining Success.
15.2	All subjective/qualitative biomarkers from the Monitoring section are listed	🟢	All six ER qualitative markers present, with their bold labels verbatim.

Issues 03/08/2026 19:04

Pass rate 100.00%. No issues found.

Issues 03/08/2026 18:50

1. 4.2 / 4.3 — Invented Protocol cell label: action_1_label is “Dose” (line 450), a label with no counterpart in the ER Therapeutic Protocol section, whose bullets are “The clinical trial protocol:” and “The supplemental protocol:”.
2. 4.5 — Sections not condensed to budget: ER prose is carried at near-full length in the marker_#_why cells (e.g. lines 799–802, 813–816), monitoring_cadence (lines 823–827), the three action_#_sub and three time_#_sub cells, and the tails of qualitative_item_4 and qualitative_item_6, pushing the sheet past one A4 page.

Fixes 03/08/2026 18:50

1. 4.2 / 4.3 — Protocol cell label restored: action_1_label changed from the invented “Dose” to the ER’s verbatim bold label “The supplemental protocol”, and action_1_sub reworded so it no longer repeats the label.
2. 4.5 — Sections condensed toward the page budget: Shortened the marker_5/8/9/10/11_why cells, monitoring_cadence, all three action_#_sub and time_#_sub cells, the tails of qualitative_item_4 and qualitative_item_6, and five over-long example-drug lists in caution_items. The sheet still exceeds one A4 page: items 8.2, 9.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2 and 15.2 mandate all 5 contraindications, all 10 interactions, all four benefit and risk tiers, all 11 quantitative biomarkers and all 6 qualitative markers, and that mandatory content alone overruns the page for this ER.

Issues 03/08/2026 18:41

1. 12.4 — Conflicted parenthetical kept in Benefits: benefits_medium (line 551) and benefits_low (lines 556-557) retain three “(conflicted)” parentheses; section 12 requires parenthetical content to be stripped because the tier label already encodes evidence strength.
2. 13.4 — Conflicted parenthetical kept in Risks: risks_speculative (line 648) retains “(conflicted)” after “Excitatory overshoot at high doses”; section 13 requires parenthetical content to be stripped for the same reason.

Fixes 03/08/2026 18:41

1. 12.4 — Conflicted parenthetical kept in Benefits: Removed the three “(conflicted)” parentheses from benefits_medium and benefits_low, leaving the bare tiered descriptors “Reduction of apathy after stroke in people who are also depressed” and “Cognitive improvement in vascular cognitive impairment; improvement of mood in severe post-stroke depression”.
2. 13.4 — Conflicted parenthetical kept in Risks: Removed the “(conflicted)” parenthesis from risks_speculative, so the item now reads “Excitatory overshoot at high doses; accumulation through liver enzyme interaction; sleep disruption”.