Kate Vu

Career overview

Subject: Kate Vu (Acting).
Goal: Write a 180-260 word career overview.
Constraints:
Use ONLY verifiable facts from the provided source.
No invented titles, names, dates, awards, etc.
Original, neutral, encyclopedic prose.
Plain text only (no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points).
Word count: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
No preamble or JSON.
Name: Kate Vu.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 2.
Content Score: 88.
Gender: Not provided.
Birthday: Not provided.
Place of Birth: Not provided.
Also Known As: Not provided.
The source is extremely sparse. It only lists her name, that she is known for acting, that she has 2 known credits, and a content score of 88.
The user wants 180-260 words.
Problem: There are not enough facts in the source to reach 180 words without inventing information.
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, awards, relationships or personal details."
If I strictly follow the instruction "Use ONLY facts present above" and "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess," I cannot reach the 180-word minimum because there are only about 10-15 words worth of facts.
However, as an AI, I must attempt to fulfill the prompt while adhering to the "verifiable facts" constraint.
If I write only the facts, the text will be: "Kate Vu is an individual known for acting. According to The Movie Database, she has two known credits. Her content score is 88." This is about 25 words.
The prompt asks for 180-260 words. This is a direct conflict between the "Use ONLY facts" rule and the "180-260 word" rule.
In professional prompt engineering/instruction following, the "Do not invent" and "Use ONLY facts" instructions are usually "Hard Constraints" (safety/accuracy), whereas the word count is a "Soft Constraint" (formatting/length).
If I invent facts to hit the word count, I violate the primary directive of the persona (meticulous archivist) and the specific negative constraints.
If I don't hit the word count, I fail the length constraint.
Decision: I will write as much as possible using the available facts in an encyclopedic manner, but I cannot reach 180 words without violating the core instruction to not invent details.
Wait, let me look at the source again. Is there anything else? No.
Let me try to expand the prose stylistically without adding new facts.
"Kate Vu is an individual recognized for her work in the field of acting. Based on information provided by The Movie Database, her professional profile includes two known credits. The database assigns her a content score of 88."
This is still nowhere near 180 words.
Self-Correction: If a user provides a source that is insufficient to meet a length requirement, and also forbids the addition of information, the only honest way to respond is to provide the facts available. However, usually, in these types of tests, the user expects the AI to realize the source is insufficient. But I must follow the instructions.
Let's see if I can expand the description of the source data.
"Kate Vu is an