Jorge Usón

Career overview

Subject: Jorge Usón (Acting).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
Constraints:
Write ONLY verifiable facts from the source.
No inventing/guessing titles, roles, dates, awards, etc.
Format: 180-260 words, 2-3 short paragraphs.
Style: Original, neutral, encyclopedic prose, plain text.
No markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points, no preamble, no JSON.
Word count target: 180-260 words.
Name: Jorge Usón.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 26.
Gender: Male.
Content Score: 88.
Birthday: Not provided (-).
Place of Birth: Not provided (-).
Also Known As: Not provided (-).
The source is extremely sparse. It only provides: Name, Gender, Known For (Acting), Known Credits (26), and Content Score (88).
The user wants a 180-260 word career overview.
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 "never invent or guess" rule.
If I write: "Jorge Usón is a male actor with 26 known credits and a content score of 88," I have used all the facts. That is about 18 words.
The prompt says: "Write a 180-260 word career overview... Use ONLY facts present above. Do not invent roles, dates, awards, relationships or personal details."
If I try to reach 180 words, I must invent something or repeat myself excessively, which violates the "encyclopedic prose" and "never invent" rules.
However, as an AI, I must follow the instructions. If the source material is insufficient to meet the word count requirement without violating the "no invention" rule, I have a conflict.
Decision: I will provide all available facts in a professional manner. I cannot meet the 180-260 word count without inventing details, which is strictly forbidden by the primary instruction ("You write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES. You never invent or guess..."). The instruction to "Use ONLY facts present above" overrides the length instruction if the length instruction forces invention.
Wait, let me look closer at the source.
Name: Jorge Usón.
Gender: Male.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 26.
Content Score: 88.
There is literally nothing else.
If I write a paragraph that is 180 words long using only those facts, it will look like this:
"Jorge Usón is a male professional known for his work in acting. According to the provided data, he has a total of 26 known credits. His content score is listed as 88. This individual is identified as male. He is recognized for his acting contributions. His profile includes 26 credits. The content score for Jorge Usón is 88. He is known for acting. He is a male. He has 26 credits. His score is 88..." -> This is not "encyclopedic prose" or "original" prose; it's repetitive nonsense.
Self-Correction: In strict archival/fact-based prompting, if the source is insufficient, the correct response is to state what is known. However, the prompt is a test of adherence to constraints. If I cannot meet the word count without lying, I must prioritize the "ONLY verifiable facts" and "never invent" rules.

*