Measured across the 323 AI drafts in the bank before touching anything.
The prompt describes three readings of a topic and the second of them
was not happening:
short 326 sections 1 per article 1,808 chars 4 highlighted
long 2,112 sections 6.5 per article 721 chars
clinical 1,060 sections 531 chars
So the revision view — the thing meant to be tight lists of what a
candidate must know — came out as a single section two and a half times
longer than a full one, written as bullets that were paragraphs, and 4
of 326 carried the ==highlight== the reader has a renderer for. "Tight
lists, not prose" and "sparingly" are adjectives, and the model read
them as suggestions.
They are numbers now: 2 to 4 separate sections, each under 600
characters, bullets of at most 20 words, and one to three highlighted
facts per section with an example of what that looks like.
Two drafts written against the live model afterwards:
Kawasaki disease 3 short sections, 292 chars avg, 3/3 highlighted
Neonatal hypoglycaemia 3 short sections, 227 chars avg, 3/3 highlighted
and the reader draws nine key-point marks on the first of them.
Also, refining no longer loses a section's variant. The existing draft
went to the model as a flat list of `## Heading`, so it had to guess all
over again which sections were the bedside and which were the revision
view — a refine could quietly move one into the other. The variant
travels in the heading now and the prompt says to keep it.
Left alone deliberately: the 16,000-token ceiling (no truncation
failure in the logs to justify moving it) and temperature 0.4.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TqXevQJhxFrM7jJg82cgZN
deb8ee7830