docs(short): el ejemplo que rompe una regla enseña a romperla
Build & Deploy ResearchOwl / build-and-push (push) Successful in 1m18s

Segunda vez que aparece la misma lección sobre el ejemplo del prompt.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
ChemaVX
2026-08-13 20:53:13 +00:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 02e553fffa
commit 4099e3eecb
+18
View File
@@ -97,6 +97,24 @@ What actually landed, and where it differs from the plan below:
redacted." costs three quarters of a second that a characters-only model gives away. redacted." costs three quarters of a second that a characters-only model gives away.
Estimates now land within half a second of the three rendered MP4s. The lesson is the Estimates now land within half a second of the three rendered MP4s. The lesson is the
older one restated: a constant taken from one sample is a guess with a decimal point. older one restated: a constant taken from one sample is a guess with a decimal point.
- **The spec writer was under-declaring because the prompt asked for three things that
could not all be true** (2026-08-13). Every narrated spec the bot had written declared
less time than its own narration needed on three or four shots out of five or six —
3.8 to 8.2 seconds of drift per Short. The video still came out the right length,
because `plan()` grows the shot; what was wrong was that the spec described a visual
rhythm that never rendered. The cause was not a lazy model. The prompt asked at once
for lines of up to 18 words, shots of at most 6 seconds, and enough declared time for
the line — and 18 words need 7.3 s, so the set is unsatisfiable. The model broke the
only one of the three that nothing checked. Three fixes, all deterministic and none
costing a generation to find: the taught rule got the per-sentence term it was missing
(`words/2.75 + 0.5` fell short on 14 of the 28 measured lines, by up to 2.27 s — so
even perfect obedience under-declared); the word cap is now *derived* from the shot
cap rather than written by hand, so the contradiction cannot come back; and the worked
example, which violated its own rule on two of its six lines, was cut to obey it. That
last one is the lesson worth keeping: **the example is the strongest signal in the
prompt, so an example that breaks a rule teaches the breakage**, whatever the prose
says. It is the same finding as "el ejemplo del prompt habla, y por eso los specs
vuelven a hablar", arriving a second time.
Original plan, kept for the record: Original plan, kept for the record: