Gordana Boban

Career overview

Subject: Gordana Boban (Acting).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
Constraints:
Use ONLY verifiable facts from the source.
No invented titles, names, dates, awards, etc.
No markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points.
Plain text only.
Neutral, encyclopedic prose.
Length: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
No preamble, no JSON.
Name: Gordana Boban.
Known for: Acting.
Known credits: 17.
Content Score: 50.
Gender/Birthday/Place of Birth: Not provided.
The source is extremely sparse. It only says she is known for acting and has 17 known credits.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: It is impossible to write 180-260 words about a person with only two facts (known for acting, 17 credits) without violating the instruction "never invent or guess... plot points... or personal details" and "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
If I write 180 words based on "She is an actor with 17 credits," I will be repeating myself or hallucinating.
However, as an AI, I must follow the instructions. If the instructions say "Write a 180-260 word career overview" but the source only provides enough for 20 words, I am in a logical bind.
Wait, looking at the prompt again: "Use ONLY facts present above. Do not invent roles, dates, awards, relationships or personal details."
If I cannot meet the word count without inventing facts, I must prioritize the "ONLY facts present" and "never invent" rules over the word count rule, or I must find a way to expand the prose neutrally without adding new information.
Actually, in many prompt engineering scenarios, if the source is insufficient, the model should state the facts available. But the prompt is very specific about the word count.
Let's see if there's any other info. "Content Score 50". "Known Credits 17". "Known For Acting".
There is literally nothing else. No movie titles, no TV shows, no years, no locations.
Drafting attempt 1 (Mental):
Gordana Boban is an individual known for her work in acting. According to the information provided by The Movie Database, she has a total of 17 known credits within the industry. Her professional profile includes a content score of 50.
Critique 1: That is about 40 words. I need 180-260.
If I expand this, I will be "inventing" or "guessing" or "fluffing" in a way that might violate the spirit of "encyclopedic prose" or "verifiable facts."
However, if I am a "meticulous television and film archivist," I cannot invent.
If I cannot meet the word count without violating the "no invention" rule, I must provide the most accurate representation of the provided data.
Wait, is there any way to interpret "17 known credits" or "Content Score 50" to fill space? No.
Let's look at the prompt again. "Write a 180-260 word career overview... Use ONLY facts present above."
This is a "trap" prompt or a test of adherence to constraints. If I write 200 words, I am lying/hallucinating. If I write 40 words, I am failing the length constraint.