Ko van den Bosch

Career overview

Subject: Ko van den Bosch (Acting).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
Constraint 1: Write ONLY verifiable facts from the source.
Constraint 2: No invented titles, names, dates, awards, etc.
Constraint 3: 180-260 words.
Constraint 4: 2-3 short paragraphs.
Constraint 5: Plain text only (no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points).
Constraint 6: Neutral, encyclopedic prose.
Name: Ko van den Bosch.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 10.
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 says he is known for acting and has 10 known credits. It also mentions a content score of 88.
Problem: The user wants a 180-260 word career overview.
Constraint Check: "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."
If I strictly follow the "ONLY verifiable facts" rule, I cannot reach 180 words because there are almost no facts.
Facts available:
1. Ko van den Bosch is an actor.
2. He has 10 known credits.
3. His content score is 88.
Drafting attempt 1 (Strict adherence to facts):
Ko van den Bosch is an individual known for his work in acting. According to records on The Movie Database, he has a total of 10 known credits within the industry.

His profile indicates a content score of 88. There is no further information available regarding his specific roles, filmography, or personal biographical details such as his birthday or place of birth.
Word count check: This is about 60 words. The prompt asks for 180-260 words.
Conflict Resolution: The prompt has two conflicting instructions:
1. "Write a 180-260 word career overview..."
2. "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."
In professional prompt engineering and instruction following, the "Negative Constraint" (Do not invent/guess) and the "Source Constraint" (Only use provided material) usually override the "Length Constraint" if the source material is insufficient to meet the length. If I invent facts to hit 180 words, I violate the core instruction of being a "meticulous television and film archivist" who "never invents or guesses."
However, I should try to expand the prose as much as possible using the available facts without repeating them excessively or adding fluff that isn't "verifiable." But even then, 180 words is impossible with only three data points (Acting, 10 credits, 88 score).
Let's look at the source again.
Name: Ko van den Bosch
Known For: Acting
Known Credits: 10
Content Score: 88
If I write: "Ko van den Bosch is an actor with 10 known credits and a content score of 88." -> That's 15 words.
Is there any other way? No. The source is a metadata snippet. It contains no biography, no film titles, no dates.
Decision: I will write the most professional, encyclopedic summary