Why this is reference content and not a clinical source
The scope conversation happens first on any drug reference project, and it is short. This is published reference content, useful and reasonably careful, and it is not a regulatory label. A dataset built from it should feed content strategy, coverage analysis and search research, and it should not feed anything that makes a clinical decision.
Within that scope the source is strong. Because the library is bounded and indexed, coverage mapping is complete rather than sampled: which medicines have detailed monographs, which are thin, and how that compares with your own catalogue if you publish drug information yourself.
The interaction graph is the second reason clients come. Extracted as pairs with severity, it supports questions about which combinations are flagged most often and how that compares across references, which is a content and completeness question rather than a clinical one.
The third is the two layer structure, which turns out to be useful rather than merely annoying. Comparing how the same drug is described to a consumer and to a prescriber is exactly the analysis a health publisher planning its own content needs.
Where accuracy about a medicine actually matters, the route is the regulatory label from the authority, and we will say so and help you join to it rather than letting a consumer reference stand in.