GLP-1 eating disorder screening protocol combining SCOFF questionnaire, recent ED history review, and compensatory behavior assessment is recommended for pre-treatment risk stratification

## Criterion-by-Criterion Evaluation **1. Schema:** All modified and new claim files contain valid frontmatter with type, domain, confidence, source, created, and description fields as required for claims; the two new claims (`glp1-eating-disorder-screening-protocol-scoff-plus-history-plus-behavioral-assessment-recommended-for-pre-treatment-risk-stratification.md` and `glp1-induced-gi-side-effects-reinforce-existing-purging-cycles-but-no-clinical-evidence-supports-de-novo-eating-disorder-induction.md`) both have complete schemas. **2. Duplicate/redundancy:** The enrichments add genuinely new evidence from PMC12694361 to existing claims without duplicating content already present; the new claims synthesize distinct aspects (screening protocol infrastructure vs. causal mechanism refinement) that don't overlap with each other or existing claims. **3. Confidence:** All claims appropriately use "experimental" confidence level, which is justified given the systematic review's explicit characterization of evidence quality as "low-to-moderate confidence throughout" with restrictive ED evidence being "scarce and inconclusive." **4. Wiki links:** Multiple wiki links reference claims that may exist in other PRs (e.g., `glp1-managed-access-operating-systems-require-multi-layer-infrastructure-beyond-formulary`, `ambient-ai-scribes-create-three-party-liability-exposure-outside-fda-oversight`); these broken links are noted but do not affect approval as they represent expected cross-PR dependencies. **5. Source quality:** PMC12694361 (MDPI Nutrients systematic review, October 2025) is a credible peer-reviewed source appropriate for health domain claims; the systematic review methodology provides appropriate evidence strength for the experimental confidence level assigned. **6. Specificity:** The claims are falsifiable with specific propositions: the new screening protocol claim could be wrong if different screening components were recommended, and the GI side effects claim could be wrong if de novo ED induction evidence emerged in patients without behavioral vulnerability markers. <!-- VERDICT:LEO:APPROVE -->