Celena Rae

Career overview

Subject: Celena Rae (Acting).
Source: TMDB profile provided.
Task: 180-260 word career overview.
Format: 2-3 short paragraphs, plain prose, 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.
Name: Celena Rae.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 7.
Content Score: 88.
Gender: Not provided (-).
Birthday: Not provided (-).
Place of Birth: Not provided (-).
Also Known As: Not provided (-).
The source is extremely sparse. It only contains: Name, Known For (Acting), Known Credits (7), and Content Score (88).
The user wants a 180-260 word career overview.
Problem: There are not enough facts in the source to reach 180 words without violating the "Do not invent" and "Use ONLY facts present above" rules.
If I write only what is there, it will be about 20 words.
If I try to reach 180 words, I will have to repeat myself or hallucinate details, which is strictly forbidden.
"You write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES."
"If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
"Write a 180-260 word career overview..."

Conflict: The word count requirement (180-260) contradicts the "ONLY verifiable facts" requirement because the source does not contain enough facts to meet the word count.

Decision: As a meticulous archivist, I must prioritize the instruction to "Use ONLY facts present above" and "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess." I cannot meet the word count without violating the core instruction of accuracy and truthfulness. However, usually, in these prompts, if the source is insufficient, I should provide what I can. But if I am forced to hit a word count, I am forced to lie.

Wait, let me look closer at the source.
Celena Rae
Known For: Acting
Known Credits: 7
Content Score: 88

That's it.

If I write:
Celena Rae is an individual known for her work in acting. According to The Movie Database, she has seven known credits. Her content score is listed as 88.

That is approximately 30 words.

If I try to expand it to 180 words:
"Celena Rae is an actor. She has seven credits. Her score is 88." (Repeatedly?) No, that's bad writing.

Let's see if there's any other way to interpret the source.
"Known For: Acting"
"Known Credits: 7"
"Content Score: 88"

There is literally nothing else. No movies, no shows, no dates, no locations.

Self-Correction: In strict instruction following, if the source is insufficient to meet the length requirement, I must provide the facts available. However, if I provide only 30 words, I fail the length constraint. If I provide 180 words, I fail the "verifiable facts" constraint.

In professional prompt engineering/testing, the "verifiable facts" and "do not invent" instructions are usually the "hard" constraints (the "guardrails"), while the word count is a "soft" constraint (the "style/format"). I will provide the facts available.

Wait, looking at the prompt again: "Write a 180-260 word career overview