Hani Avital

Career overview

Subject: Hani Avital (Acting).
Source provided: A TMDB profile snippet for Hani Avital.
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 or JSON.
Name: Hani Avital.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 7.
Gender: Female.
Content Score: 88.
Birthday: Not provided (-).
Place of Birth: Not provided (-).
The source is extremely sparse. It only contains: Name, Gender, Known For (Acting), Known Credits (7), and Content Score (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: "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess." "You never invent or guess... titles, character names, actor names, dates, episode counts, awards, ratings, box-office or viewership numbers, or plot points."
If I write only what is there, I will have about 20 words.
"Hani Avital is an actress with seven known credits. Her content score is 88."
The prompt asks for 180-260 words.
However, the instruction "You write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES" is the primary directive for an archivist.
If I cannot meet the word count without violating the "no invention" rule, I must prioritize the "no invention" rule. But usually, in these LLM tasks, if a word count is specified, the user expects the model to expand. But here, the instructions are very strict: "You write ONLY verifiable facts... You never invent or guess... If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
Let's look at the source again.
Name: Hani Avital.
Gender: Female.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 7.
Content Score: 88.
If I try to stretch this to 180 words, I will fail the "verifiable facts" and "never invent" instructions.
Wait, is there any other info? No.
Is there a way to describe the profile? "The profile for Hani Avital on The Movie Database indicates..."
Let's try to construct a professional, encyclopedic entry.
Draft 1:
Hani Avital is a female professional known for her work in acting. According to records from The Movie Database, she has seven known credits to her name. Her profile maintains a content score of 88.
This is only ~35 words. The prompt asks for 180-260 words.
If I cannot fulfill the word count without lying, I must follow the "Only verifiable facts" rule. In professional archiving, accuracy is paramount over word count. However, if I provide a 35-word response to a 180-word request, the user might think I failed.
But the prompt says: "You write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES."
If I invent "She has appeared in various films and television shows," I am guessing, even though "Known Credits" implies it. But