Esteban Madrigal

Career overview

Subject: Esteban Madrigal (Acting).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
Constraints:
Write ONLY verifiable facts from the source.
No invented titles, names, dates, awards, etc.
Original, neutral, encyclopedic prose.
Plain text only (no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points).
Length: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
No preamble, no JSON.
Name: Esteban Madrigal.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 2.
Content Score: 50.
Gender/Birthday/Place of Birth/Also Known As: Not provided.
The source is extremely sparse. It only says he is known for acting and has 2 known credits.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: There is literally not enough information in the source to reach 180 words without inventing facts, which is strictly forbidden by the prompt instructions ("You never invent or guess... If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess.").
If I follow the instruction "Write a 180-260 word career overview" but also "You never invent or guess... If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess," I face a logical contradiction because the source material is insufficient to meet the word count.
However, as an archivist, I must prioritize the "verifiable facts" and "never invent" rules over the word count if the word count requires invention.
Wait, let me look closer at the source.
Source: "Known For Acting", "Known Credits 2", "Content Score 50".
That's it.
If I write: "Esteban Madrigal is an actor known for his work in the industry. He has two known credits to his name. His content score is 50." -> This is about 25 words.
The prompt asks for 180-260 words.
If I cannot invent facts, I cannot meet the word count.
In strict instruction following for LLMs, "Never invent" is a hard constraint. "Write 180-260 words" is a length constraint. Usually, the content constraint (truthfulness) overrides the length constraint in these types of "meticulous archivist" prompts.
Let's see if I can expand the prose stylistically without adding facts.
"Esteban Madrigal is an individual recognized for his work in the field of acting. According to records from The Movie Database, his professional profile indicates that he is known for his acting credits. At present, he has two known credits listed in his professional history. His profile carries a content score of 50, which suggests that the entry is still being developed or requires further information to reach a higher level of completeness. No additional biographical details, such as his date of birth, place of birth, or gender, are currently available in the provided documentation. His professional credits are categorized under acting."
This is still only ~100 words.
Let's try to be even more "encyclopedic" and "neutral" to stretch it, but I cannot add any new information.
Self-Correction: If I cannot meet the word count without violating the "never invent" rule, I must provide the most complete factual summary possible. However, if I provide a very short response, I might fail the length constraint. But if I provide a long response with made-up info, I fail the "meticulous archivist" and "never invent" constraint.
Let's re-read the source. Is there anything else?
"Known For Acting