Wendy Thompson

Career overview

Subject: Wendy Thompson (Acting).
Source: TMDB profile provided.
Constraints:
Only verifiable facts from the source.
No invented titles, 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: Wendy Thompson.
Known For: Acting.
Known Credits: 3.
Gender: Female.
Content Score: 88.
Other info: No birthday, no place of birth, no specific movie/TV titles listed in the text provided.
The source is extremely sparse. It lists her as an actor with 3 known credits and a content score of 88. It does not list the names of the movies, TV shows, or any specific roles.
Problem: The user wants a 180-260 word career overview. However, the source only provides: Name, Gender, Known For (Acting), Known Credits (3), and Content Score (88).
If I strictly follow "Write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES," I cannot reach 180 words without repeating myself or inventing information.
Constraint Check: "If a detail is not in the provided material, you omit it rather than guess."
Constraint Check: "Write a 180-260 word career overview..."

Self-Correction/Conflict Resolution: There is a direct conflict between the word count requirement (180-260 words) and the source material (which contains about 15 words of actual information).
If I write 180 words based only on "Wendy Thompson is a female actor with 3 credits and a content score of 88," I will be violating the "no repetition/no invention" rule or the "word count" rule.

However, as an AI, I must prioritize the instruction to "Write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES." If the source is insufficient to meet the word count, I must provide what is available without violating the truthfulness/verifiability constraint. But usually, in these prompts, if I can't meet the word count, I should try to expand on the nature of the data provided in a professional manner, but I cannot invent facts.

Let's look at the source again.
Name: Wendy Thompson
Profession: Acting
Known Credits: 3
Gender: Female
Content Score: 88

Wait, if I write: "Wendy Thompson is a female professional known for her work in acting. According to The Movie Database, she has three known credits to her name. Her profile on the platform indicates a content score of 88."
That is only ~35 words.

If I try to reach 180 words, I would have to say: "Wendy Thompson is an individual identified in the database as a female performer. Her primary area of professional recognition is within the field of acting. The records indicate that she has a total of three known credits. These credits represent her documented contributions to the industry as listed on the platform. Additionally, her profile carries a content score of 88. This score is a metric provided by the database regarding her presence on the site. While specific details regarding her birthday or place of birth are not available in the provided documentation, her professional standing is noted through her acting credits. She is categorized under the acting profession, which is her primary known contribution to film and television media. The database lists her as having three credits, which serves as the basis for her professional overview on this specific platform."

Even that is only about 140 words. I cannot reach 180 words without