Method
What we didn't prioritize.
A clearer routine is not built by adding everything that sounds useful. The engine recommends the smallest set of options that fit the goals and preferences you gave it — and then it tells you what it left out, and why.
A lower priority is a statement about your profile, not a verdict on an ingredient. The same product can be the right answer for someone else on the same day.
This is not a list of bad supplements, and it is never a medical judgement. Nothing here says an ingredient is unsafe, ineffective, or wrong for you — only that, given what you told us, something else ranked higher, or the information was not complete enough to rank it at all.
Three outcomes
Left out is not one thing.
A product can miss your routine for reasons that have nothing to do with each other, so they are never shown as one undifferentiated list.
Something else ranked higher.
Lower relevance to the goals you stated, a more direct option already in the routine, or simply outside the number of things you said you were willing to take. This says nothing about the product except that, for you, today, something fit better.
Your profile emphasises staying asleep. CoQ10 ranks against cellular-energy and cardiovascular research, so it did not enter this routine.
You would be taking it twice.
Two products disclose the same active ingredient, or you told us you already take an equivalent. We flag the duplication and point you at both Supplement Facts panels — we do not tell you the combined amount is safe or unsafe, because that depends on the actual doses and on you.
Your routine already includes Magnesium Glycinate. Compare both Supplement Facts panels before combining them.
Not our call to make.
Medication, pregnancy or nursing, a known allergy, surgery, a diagnosed condition, possible interference with a lab test, or a hormone-active ingredient. The engine does not decide these. It says so and points you to someone qualified.
This one is worth raising with a healthcare professional before you add it.
The full vocabulary
Every reason we are allowed to give.
These are the only reasons the engine can produce. It cannot write a new one, and no language model may invent one — a reason is a code with a source behind it, rendered into a sentence.
| Reason | What it means | What it rests on |
|---|---|---|
low_goal_relevance |
Scored below the threshold against your stated priorities | Your answers × product weights |
secondary_priority |
Ranked, but behind a more direct option for the same outcome | Your answers × product weights |
routine_limit |
Would take the routine past the size you chose | Your stated routine size |
ingredient_overlap |
Another item in the routine discloses the same active ingredient | Both Supplement Facts panels |
owned_equivalent |
You told us you already take an equivalent | Your answers |
dietary_mismatch |
Conflicts with a dietary preference you set | Your answers × the product label |
caffeine_preference |
Conflicts with the caffeine preference you set | Your answers × the product label |
form_mismatch |
Conflicts with the form or timing you prefer | Your answers × the product record |
evidence_limited |
Reliable human evidence specific to this ingredient is limited | The ingredient record — the same wording appears on its monograph |
formula_evidence_not_established |
Evidence exists for the ingredients, but not for this combination at these amounts | The ingredient records + the product label |
label_information_incomplete |
A fact we require before recommending is missing from the product record | The product record |
professional_review |
A circumstance where a qualified professional should decide, not an engine | The safety gate |
Products that are not for retail sale, or whose records are not approved, never enter the ranking at all — so they never appear here either. Ineligibility is silence, not an explanation.
What you would see
In your results.
Example — not your results
3 options were left out of this routine.
- A caffeinated pre-workout Not prioritised You asked for a caffeine-free routine.
- A magnesium sleep complex Possible overlap Your routine already includes magnesium glycinate. Compare both Supplement Facts panels before combining them.
- A botanical with thin research Evidence limited Reliable human evidence specific to this ingredient is limited, so it is not ranked into a routine. The monograph explains what has and has not been studied.
The count is of options that were scored and came close, not of the whole catalogue. Each line links to the ingredient record behind it, and every one of them can be added anyway — the engine advises, you decide.
Boundaries
What this will never become.
Constraints in the design, not promises in the copy.
Never a blacklist.
There is no permanent page here saying which ingredients to avoid. The same ingredient can be irrelevant to one profile and the right answer for the next, and a standing list of "bad" ingredients would be a claim we would have to defend for every person who reads it.
Never a medical judgement.
Nothing here decides that a supplement is unsafe for you. Where your circumstances call for a professional, the engine says exactly that and stops — it does not substitute its own conclusion for a clinician's.
Never about other brands.
The engine ranks what WQ sells against what you told it. It does not rate other companies' products, and a low priority here is not a comparison with anything outside this catalogue.
Never invented.
Every reason is one of the codes above, produced by a rule and traceable to a source. A language model turns the code into a sentence; it cannot create a reason, and it cannot add to the list.
Related
How the rest of it works.
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. This assessment is educational and is not medical advice.
