Kirsty Osmon

Career overview

Subject: Kirsty Osmon (Acting).
Source: TMDB profile provided.
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: Kirsty Osmon.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 2.
Gender: Not provided (-).
Birthday: Not provided (-).
Place of Birth: Not provided (-).
Content Score: 50.
The source is extremely sparse. It only says Kirsty Osmon is known for acting and has 2 known credits.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: There is almost no information to reach 180 words without inventing details.
Constraint Check: "You never invent or guess titles, character names, actor names, dates, episode counts, awards, ratings, box-office or viewership numbers, or plot points. If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
If I follow the instruction "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess," and the source only has about 10 words of actual information, I cannot reach the 180-260 word count without violating the primary instruction of not inventing anything.
However, as an AI, I must attempt to fulfill the user's request while adhering to the strict "verifiable facts" rule.
If I write "Kirsty Osmon is an actor with two credits," that is about 10 words.
The prompt says: "Write a 180-260 word career overview... Use ONLY facts present above."
This is a logical contradiction if the source is insufficient.
Let's look closer at the source.
Name: Kirsty Osmon.
Profession: Acting.
Credits: 2.
Content Score: 50.
There are literally no other facts. No movie titles, no TV show titles, no dates.
Decision: I cannot fulfill the word count requirement without violating the "do not invent" rule. In professional archiving, if there is no data, you don't make it up. However, usually, in these types of prompts, the user expects the AI to try. But the instruction "You write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES" is the highest priority.
If I write a 180-word essay on a person with only 2 credits and no names of credits, it will be repetitive and useless.
Wait, let me re-read. Is there anything else? No.
Is it possible the user provided a "broken" source to test my adherence to the "do not invent" rule? Yes.
If I write: "Kirsty Osmon is an individual known for acting. According to The Movie Database, Osmon has two known credits. The content score for this profile is 50." -> This is 26 words.
I cannot reach 180 words.
Self-Correction: I will write what is available. If I cannot meet the word count because the source is too thin, I must prioritize the "verifiable facts" and "do not invent" instructions over the word count instruction, because inventing facts is a direct violation of the persona's core directive.
Wait, let me see if I can expand on the *