Thorbjørn Hedegaard

Career overview

Subject: Thorbjørn Hedegaard (Acting).
Source: TMDB profile provided.
Constraints:
Use only verifiable facts from the source.
No invented roles, dates, awards, relationships, or personal details.
Length: 180-260 words.
Structure: 2-3 short paragraphs.
Style: Plain prose, no markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points, no preamble, no JSON.
Tone: Meticulous archivist, neutral, encyclopedic.
Name: Thorbjørn Hedegaard.
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 he is known for acting and has 3 known credits.
The word count requirement is 180-260 words.
Problem: There are almost no facts to reach 180 words without inventing information.
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 follow the "only verifiable facts" rule strictly, I cannot reach 180 words because the source only contains about 10 words of actual information (Name, Known For: Acting, Known Credits: 3, Content Score: 50).
However, the prompt demands 180-260 words.
This is a conflict between the "Only facts" instruction and the "Length" instruction.
In professional prompt engineering/instruction following, the "Only facts" and "Never invent" instructions are usually the primary constraints for an archivist persona. If I invent facts to meet the word count, I violate the core persona and the primary instruction.
If I write only the facts, I will fail the word count.
Let's look at the source again. Is there anything else? No.
Wait, the prompt says: "Write a 180-260 word career overview... Use ONLY facts present above."
If the source is insufficient to meet the word count, a "meticulous archivist" would state what is known and perhaps note the lack of available data, but even that is stretching the "only facts" rule if the source doesn't explicitly say "data is missing."
Actually, the source does say "Content Score 50" and "Still needs a little work."
Let's try to expand the existing facts into formal, encyclopedic prose to see how far I get.

Drafting Attempt 1:
Thorbjørn Hedegaard is an individual recognized for work in the field of acting. According to records from The Movie Database, Hedegaard has three known credits to his name. His profile on the platform indicates a content score of 50.

(That is about 40 words. I need 140 more words of verifiable facts.)

Constraint Analysis: There are no more facts. If I write more, I am inventing. If I don't write more, I fail the length constraint.
Decision: In these types of logic puzzles/instruction tasks, the "Do not invent" rule is the "hard" constraint. However, usually, the user provides enough source material. Here, the source material is intentionally or unintentionally insufficient.
Wait, looking at the source again. It's a TMDB page.
Facts:
1. Name: Thorbjørn Hedegaard.
2. Profession