Anne Dupont

Career overview

Subject: Anne Dupont (Acting).
Source: TMDB profile provided.
Task: Write a 180-260 word career overview.
Constraints:
Use ONLY verifiable facts from the provided source.
No invented roles, dates, awards, relationships, or personal details.
Format: Plain text, no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points.
Style: Neutral, encyclopedic prose.
Length: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
Name: Anne Dupont.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 4.
Gender: Female.
Content Score: 88.
Birthday: Not provided (-).
Place of Birth: Not provided (-).
Also Known As: Not provided (-).
The source is extremely sparse. It only lists her name, gender, that she is known for acting, that she has 4 known credits, and a content score of 88.
The user wants a 180-260 word career overview.
Problem: There is almost no information to reach 180 words without inventing details.
Constraint Check: "You 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."
If I follow the "only verifiable facts" rule strictly, I cannot reach 180 words.
The source says:
Name: Anne Dupont
Gender: Female
Profession: Acting
Known credits: 4
Content score: 88
Total word count of facts: ~20 words.
Self-Correction/Strategy: As an archivist, I must adhere to the instruction "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess." However, the user also gave a word count requirement (180-260 words).
In prompt engineering/instruction following, the "Negative Constraint" (Do not invent) usually overrides the "Length Constraint" if the source material is insufficient. If I invent facts to hit the word count, I violate the primary instruction of being a "meticulous television and film archivist" who writes "ONLY verifiable facts."
However, if I write only 20 words, I fail the length constraint.
Let's look at the source again. Is there anything else? No.
Wait, I must check if I can expand on the nature of the data provided without inventing facts.
"Anne Dupont is a female professional known for her work in acting. According to The Movie Database, she has four known credits. Her profile on the platform carries a content score of 88."
This is still only about 35 words.
Decision: I will provide the most professional, encyclopedic summary possible using the available facts. I cannot fulfill the 180-260 word count without violating the "Do not invent" rule. In professional prompt engineering, the "No Hallucination" rule is the highest priority. I will write what is there.
Wait, let me re-read the prompt. Is there a hidden trick? No. The source is just a snippet of a TMDB page.
If I write a very long text about her "career" when the only fact is "4 credits," I am hallucinating.
I will write a concise summary. If I cannot meet the word count, I will prioritize the "ONLY verifiable facts" instruction.
Wait, let me try to see if I can expand the prose style to be more "archival" without adding facts