Robi Arquette

Career overview

Subject: Robi Arquette (Acting).
Source: Provided TMDB snippet.
Constraints:
Only verifiable facts from the source.
No invented roles, dates, awards, relationships, or personal details.
Length: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
Format: Plain prose only, no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points, no preamble, no JSON.
Style: Neutral, encyclopedic, meticulous archivist.
Name: Robi Arquette.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 2.
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 Robi Arquette is known for acting and has 2 known credits. The content score is 50.
Problem: The prompt asks for a 180-260 word career overview. However, the source material only contains about 10-15 words of actual information.
Constraint Check: "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 follow the "only verifiable facts" rule, I cannot reach 180 words because there are no facts to write about.
If I try to reach 180 words, I will be forced to "invent or guess," which is strictly forbidden by the system instructions.
Decision: I must prioritize the "ONLY verifiable facts" and "never invent" instructions over the word count instruction, as the word count is impossible to meet without violating the core truthfulness constraint. However, usually, in these LLM prompts, if the source is short, the model should state what is available.
Wait, let me look at the source again. Is there anything else? No.
Robi Arquette is known for acting. There are 2 known credits. The content score is 50.
Self-Correction: If I write a 20-word paragraph, I fail the length constraint. If I write a 180-word paragraph, I fail the "verifiable facts" constraint. In professional prompt engineering/instruction following, the "Do not invent" rule is a hard constraint for an archivist persona. I will write as much as I can using the provided facts, but I cannot fulfill the word count without lying.
Actually, looking at the prompt again: "Write a 180-260 word career overview..."
If I cannot meet the word count, I should provide the most accurate summary possible.
Let's see if I can expand the prose stylistically without adding facts.
"Robi Arquette is an individual recognized for work in the field of acting. According to the records provided by The Movie Database, Arquette has two known credits to their name. The profile for this individual currently maintains a content score of 50."
That is only ~40 words.
Wait, is there a way to interpret the source differently? No.
Is there a way to describe the source? The prompt says "Write a 180-260 word career overview of Robi Arquette". It doesn't say "Write an overview of the TMDB page".
Strict Adherence Strategy: I will write the facts available. I will attempt to use formal, encyclopedic language to stretch it, but I will not invent details. If I cannot reach 180 words, I have failed the length constraint but succeeded in the "verifiable facts