Philip Cass

Career overview

Subject: Philip Cass (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.
No markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points.
Plain text, neutral, encyclopedic prose.
Word count: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
Name: Philip Cass.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 3.
Content Score: 50.
Gender: Not provided.
Birthday: Not provided.
Place of Birth: Not provided.
Also Known As: Not provided.
The source is extremely sparse. It only says Philip Cass is known for acting and has 3 known credits.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: I cannot reach 180 words using only the facts provided without repeating myself or inventing information, which is strictly forbidden by the prompt ("You never invent or guess... If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess").
If I write: "Philip Cass is an actor with three known credits. His content score is 50." -> That is about 15 words.
The prompt says: "Write a 180-260 word career overview... Use ONLY facts present above."
This is a logical contradiction. I cannot write 180 words of unique, verifiable facts from a source that only contains about 10 words of actual information.
Option A: Write as much as possible and fail the word count.
Option B: Repeat the facts to hit the word count (this looks unprofessional and violates "encyclopedic prose").
Option C: Acknowledge the limitation? No, the instructions say "Write ONLY verifiable facts... Write original, neutral, encyclopedic prose".

Let's look at the source again.
Name: Philip Cass
Profession: Acting
Credits: 3
Content Score: 50

There is literally nothing else. No movie titles, no years, no locations.

If I follow the "Use ONLY facts present above" and "Do not invent" rules, I cannot fulfill the "180-260 word" rule. In professional prompt engineering/instruction following, the "negative constraint" (Do not invent) usually overrides the "length constraint" (180-260 words) because inventing information is a hallucination error.

However, as an AI, I should try to be as helpful as possible. If I write a very short paragraph, I am following the core instruction of being an archivist who only writes verifiable facts.

Wait, is there any way to expand?
"Philip Cass is a person listed on The Movie Database. He is known for his work in acting. According to his profile, he has three known credits. His content score is listed as 50."

That's still only ~35 words.

Let's check if I missed anything in the source.
"Philip Cass — The Movie Database (TMDB)"
"Known For: Acting"
"Known Credits: 3"
"Content Score: 50"

There is no way to reach 180 words without violating the "Do not invent" rule.

Decision: I will write the most professional, encyclopedic summary possible using the available facts. I will prioritize the "ONLY verifiable facts" and "Do not invent" instructions over the word count, as the word count is impossible to meet without violating the primary directive of the persona (an archivist who never invents).

Drafting the content: