James Tumminia

Career overview

Subject: James Tumminia (Production).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
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 source. Do not invent roles, dates, awards, relationships, or personal details.
Name: James Tumminia.
Known For: Production.
Known Credits: 23.
Gender: Male.
Content Score: 88.
Other info: Birthday/Place of Birth are not provided.
The source is extremely sparse. It only says he is known for production and has 23 known credits.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: It is impossible to write 180-260 words about a person using only the facts "James Tumminia is a male known for production with 23 known credits and a content score of 88" without violating the instruction "Do not invent roles, dates, awards, relationships or personal details" or "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
If I write only what is there, the text will be about 20 words long.
The prompt asks for 180-260 words.
However, the system instruction says: "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."
The system instruction (the "Archivist" persona) is a "hard" constraint on truthfulness. The user prompt's word count is a "soft" formatting constraint.
In professional prompt engineering/instruction following, the "System Instruction" (the persona and the rule to only use provided facts) overrides the user's length requirement if the length requirement forces the violation of the truthfulness rule.
Wait, let me re-read. Is there any other info? No.
If I try to fluff it up to 180 words, I will be inventing details (e.g., "He has worked in the industry for many years," "His work is recognized in the field of production," etc.). These are inferences, not "verifiable facts explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES."
Let's look at the source again.
Name: James Tumminia.
Known For: Production.
Known Credits: 23.
Gender: Male.
Content Score: 88.
If I write: "James Tumminia is a male professional known for his work in production. According to The Movie Database, he has 23 known credits. His content score is 88." -> This is about 30 words.
Can I expand this without inventing?
"James Tumminia is a male individual whose professional profile on The Movie Database identifies him as being known for production. His profile indicates that he has 23 known credits. The content score associated with his profile is 88." -> Still only ~40 words.
The user wants 180-260 words. The source provides almost nothing.
If I follow the "Archivist" instructions (the most important part), I cannot meet the word count without lying or guessing.
If I follow the word count, I violate the "Archivist" instructions.
The "Archivist" instructions are the core identity: "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."
I will provide the facts available. I cannot meet the word