Isla McRae

Career overview

Subject: Isla McRae (Acting).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
Constraint 1: Use ONLY verifiable facts from the source.
Constraint 2: No invented roles, dates, awards, relationships, or personal details.
Constraint 3: 180-260 words.
Constraint 4: 2-3 short paragraphs.
Constraint 5: Plain prose only (no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points, no preamble, no JSON).
Constraint 6: Neutral, encyclopedic tone.
Name: Isla McRae.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 3.
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 mentions she is an actress with 3 known credits and a content score of 88.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: It is impossible to write 180-260 words of verifiable facts from a source that only contains about 10 words of actual information without violating the "Do not invent" rule.
If I write 180 words, I will have to repeat myself or use filler, which violates the "encyclopedic prose" and "verifiable facts" instruction.
However, the prompt is a strict instruction. If the source doesn't have enough info, a "meticulous archivist" would state what is known and note the lack of further data, but the prompt says "Write a 180-260 word career overview".
Let's look at the source again.
Name: Isla McRae.
Profession: Acting.
Credits: 3.
Gender: Female.
Content Score: 88.
There is literally nothing else.
Self-Correction/Constraint Conflict: The user wants 180-260 words. The source provides ~15 words of data. If I follow the "Use ONLY facts present" rule, I cannot reach 180 words without being repetitive or inventing. If I follow the "180-260 word" rule, I must invent.
Instruction Priority: "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."
This instruction is the "System Instruction" and is paramount. The user's prompt asks for a specific length. If the length cannot be met without violating the system instruction, the system instruction (the core persona/rule) must take precedence.
However, usually in these LLM tests, the user is testing if I can expand on the provided text. But here, there is nothing to expand on.
Wait, let me re-read the source.
"Known For: Acting"
"Known Credits: 3"
"Gender: Female"
"Content Score: 88"
There are no movie titles, no years, no specific roles.
If I write: "Isla McRae is an actress. She has 3 known credits. Her content score is 88. She is female." -> This is about 20 words.
If I try to reach 180 words, I would have to say: "Isla McRae is an individual known for her work in acting. According to the provided data, she has three known credits in the industry. Her profile indicates a content score of 88.