Ali Durham

Career overview

Subject: Ali Durham (Acting).
Task: Write a 180-260 word career overview.
Format: 2-3 short paragraphs, plain prose only, no markdown, no headings, no preamble, no JSON.
Constraint: Use ONLY verifiable facts from the provided source. Do not invent roles, dates, awards, relationships, or personal details.
Source Content:
Name: Ali Durham.
Also Known As: Alesandra Durham.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 13.
Gender: Female.
Content Score: 88.
Ali Durham is an actress.
She is also known as Alesandra Durham.
She has 13 known credits.
Her gender is female.
Her content score is 88.
The source is extremely sparse. It only contains basic metadata from a TMDB profile.
I need to reach 180-260 words.
Problem: If I only use the facts provided, I cannot reach 180 words without repeating myself or adding fluff, which violates the "neutral, encyclopedic prose" and "verifiable facts" instructions.
Wait: The prompt says "Write a 180-260 word career overview... Use ONLY facts present above."
If the facts provided are: Name, Also Known As, Gender, Known For (Acting), Known Credits (13), Content Score (88).
How can I write 180 words about this?
"Ali Durham is a female actress. She is also known as Alesandra Durham. She has 13 known credits. Her content score is 88." -> This is about 25 words.
If I expand it to meet the word count, I will be "inventing" or "guessing" or using "fluff" which might violate the instruction to "Write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported".
However, the prompt explicitly asks for a 180-260 word overview.
In professional prompt engineering/instruction following, if the source material is insufficient to meet the length requirement without violating the "only facts" rule, there is a conflict.
Let's look at the source again.
[1] Ali Durham — The Movie Database (TMDB)... Known For: Acting. Known Credits: 13. Gender: Female. Also Known As: Alesandra Durham. Content Score: 88.
There are no movies, no TV shows, no dates, no awards, no locations.
If I write a 180-word text, I will have to repeat the same facts multiple times or use filler.
Let's try to construct a professional-sounding text that stays strictly within the facts, even if it's repetitive, to see if I can hit the target.
Actually, as an archivist, I cannot "fluff" a biography. If the data isn't there, I can't write it. But the prompt is a strict instruction.
Let's see if I can describe the profile itself? No, it asks for a "career overview of Ali Durham".
If I cannot meet the word count without violating the "no invention" rule, I must prioritize the "only verifiable facts" rule, but usually, in these LLM tests, the user wants to see if I can stretch the provided info. But "stretching" is "inventing".
Let's re-read: "Write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES. You never invent or guess... If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
This instruction is paramount. If the source only provides 5-6 facts,