Vitals Knowledge Vault

Vault QA Checklist

3 min read

Vault QA Checklist

Use this checklist after any MiniMax Obsidian conversion batch or major vault edit.

Purpose

This is the review gate that keeps the Vitals vault consistent over time.

Use it for:

  • batch graph conversions
  • note upgrades
  • duplicate cleanup
  • review passes after context loss

1. Duplicate / Naming Check

  • No duplicate notes for the same concept
  • Canonical note names are used consistently
  • MOCs follow [Topic] MOC.md
  • detection notes follow [Topic] detection model.md
  • interaction notes follow [Topic] peptide interactions.md or [Topic] interactions.md
  • note titles are semantically clear and not essay-like

If duplicate exists

  • choose canonical title
  • migrate stronger content
  • update backlinks
  • remove or archive duplicate

2. Folder Placement Check

  • Hub notes are in the right folder
  • MOCs are in 00-Maps/
  • mechanism notes are in 02-Mechanisms/
  • biometrics notes are in 03-Biometrics/
  • recovery / risk notes are in 04-Protocols-and-Recovery/
  • detection-model notes are in 05-Detection-Models/
  • interaction / peptide notes are in 06-Peptides-and-Interactions/

3. Graph Size Check

  • No trivial one-off concepts were split into standalone notes
  • compound-specific microdetails stayed inside the hub where appropriate
  • new mechanism notes were only created if broadly reusable
  • the graph is the smallest useful graph, not a note explosion

4. Retrieval Quality Check

  • note titles match likely human / LLM retrieval language
  • high-signal claims and numbers were preserved
  • notes are chunked by concept, not arbitrary sectioning
  • links improve retrieval paths rather than adding clutter
  • important comparisons to existing vault notes are present where useful

5. Tone / Evidence Check

  • hype language removed or minimized
  • evidence is separated from projection
  • uncertainty is visible where evidence is weak
  • note does not overstate preclinical findings as clinical reality
  • company / pipeline / trivia detail is not crowding the main retrieval value

6. Vitals Relevance Check

  • important notes include why they matter for Vitals when applicable
  • wearable / recovery / body-composition relevance is explicit where useful
  • practical stack context is present when meaningful
  • note helps future coaching / detection / interpretation work

7. Shared-Note Conflict Check

  • no new mechanism note duplicates an existing shared concept
  • existing shared notes were reused when possible
  • updated shared notes still make sense for all linked compounds
  • no batch introduced ontology drift in shared concepts

8. Map / MOC Check

  • relevant MOCs were updated
  • Vitals Knowledge Map was updated where needed
  • new notes are reachable through at least one map or hub
  • orphan notes were avoided

9. Resume / Persistence Check

  • any new workflow decision worth preserving was written to repo memory
  • if the batch changed standards, update:
    • Vault Operating Rules.md
    • Conversion Priority Queue.md
    • MiniMax Vault Review Addendum.md
    • BOOTSTRAP.md if needed

10. Final Judgment Check

Ask:

  • Would this note retrieve cleanly for an LLM?
  • Would a human scanning fast understand why it exists?
  • Did we create any note that looks clever but adds little practical value?
  • Is the vault cleaner after this batch than before it?

If not, prune before moving on.

Graph View

Backlinks