S1·E204 Who Killed Ravinder - Part 2

Episode recap

Topic: C.I.D. S1E204 (Who Killed Ravinder - Part 2).
Task: Write a grounded 280-380 word episode recap.
Constraint 1: Use ONLY verifiable facts from the provided SYNOPSIS and SOURCES.
Constraint 2: Do not invent/guess titles, names, dates, etc.
Constraint 3: If details are missing, omit them.
Constraint 4: Write original, neutral, encyclopedic prose in plain text.
Constraint 5: No markdown, no asterisks, no headings, no bullet points.
Constraint 6: Word count target: 280-380 words.
Title: Who Killed Ravinder - Part 2.
Context: Huge involvement of an underground gambling scene.
Motive: The motive behind the murder becomes clearer due to the gambling scene.
Key Figure: Rosy.
Rosy's connection: She frequented one of these gambling dens and was known to the deceased (Ravinder).
Investigation: ACP and his team are investigating.
The synopsis is extremely sparse.
Facts available:
1. The episode is titled Who Killed Ravinder - Part 2.
2. The investigation involves an underground gambling scene.
3. The involvement of this gambling scene clarifies the motive for the murder.
4. ACP and his team are conducting the investigation.
5. A person named Rosy is identified.
6. Rosy frequented a gambling den.
7. Rosy was known to the deceased.
Problem: The synopsis is very short. Reaching 280-380 words without inventing facts or "fluff" (which violates the "neutral, encyclopedic prose" and "only verifiable facts" rules) is impossible if I strictly follow the "never invent or guess" rule.
Wait, the prompt says: "If the synopsis is sparse, stay concise rather than guessing."
However, the prompt also says: "Write a grounded 280-380 word episode recap".
There is a direct conflict between the word count requirement (280-380) and the instruction to "stay concise rather than guessing" when the synopsis is sparse.
If I write 300 words about a 3-sentence synopsis without adding any new information, I will be forced to repeat myself or use extremely flowery language, which violates "neutral, encyclopedic prose".
Actually, if I repeat the same facts multiple times to hit the word count, it's not "encyclopedic prose".
Let's look at the instructions again: "You write ONLY verifiable facts that are explicitly supported by the provided SY