There’s some evidence for 'cycled' use of rapamycin in at least a couple of kinds of age reversal. I remember one showing that it could reverse some age related hearing loss. I don’t think it was well powered, though.
There’s evidence for taurine, but it’s mostly murine (mice). Human studies are hampered by the lack of a good 'clock' for biological age. Rodents are the closest relatives that primates have, but we’re still pretty different. See * for a sidetrack below.
As far as NAD 'precursors’, those are both converted to niacinamide before being absorbed - so you might as well take that as it’s cheaper than aspirin. Either way, it’s either converted via methylation in the liver and stored there (providing a reservoir) or disposed of, so it’s important to have methyl donors available - particularly if you’re not part of the 25% of the population that are good methylators. I take TMG (AKA 'betaine’) to provide methyl donors, along with NAC (N-acetyl cysteine) as there’s good evidence for the combination of the two reducing muscle loss (google ‘GlyNAC’). Creatine (in much lower quantities than muscle builders use) does this as well - and there’s evidence that it reduces age related brain issues.
I suspect the reported electromagnetic therapy is from Beemer - which stimulates muscles at a frequency that promotes local blood flow.
I’ve read they’re used by NASA to help astronauts recover from periods of weightlessness. I used one myself after a month in hospital with a brain infection (not part of rehab, just something I tried that seemed to help in my 'relearn to walk' project).
Restricting blue light before bed has very mixed evidence but I suspect that’s due to it being effective for some, not for others, but I can’t argue with good sleep hygiene - or with regular exercise.
All that said, I’m a little surprised that the regimen doesn’t also include longer fasts or ice baths to promote the conversion of white fat to beige (larger mitochondrial populations).

*sidetrack: I’ve been reading biochemist Nick Lane’s books. One thing he covers is that we eukaryotes have two different genomes in each cell. The nuclear, and the mitochondrial. There are a number of implications, but for aging it seems to be a matter of how well they’re matched (proteins for the ETC come from both genomes and have to ‘fit’ almost perfectly). For instance pigeons and rats weigh about the same, but pigeons live about ten times as long. Nick thinks that it’s because the aerobic needs of flight means that a bird’s two genomes need to be very, very well matched - but that comes at the expense of fecundity. He posits that humans live long because at some point our ancestors had to also be aerobically fit (maybe running after game?) which drove a better match between genomes. For those folks with some microbiology, the proteins that make up the electron transfer chain come from codons in both the nucleus and the mitochondria. The ETC works via electron tunneling so a misfit of a couple of angstroms can reduce efficiency, more than that means failure. Fascinating stuff - and it’s clear we won’t understand aging until we understand how the two genomes work together.
As a side note to this side note, there’s also 'extra-chromosomal' DNA in the nucleus. Nobody knows that it does but finding it in a tumor usually means it’ll recover quickly from chemo (not good). Maybe something like lateral gene transfer, but WTH knows?
Sorry for going on so long...