Calibrate instruction specificity to fragility
Choose broad guidance, parameterized recipes or exact commands according to the task’s justified variation and failure cost.
These examples and illustrative results are independently authored teaching materials, not measured model results.
Use case
Instructions serve flexible review and fragile migration. Multiple review paths can work while migration needs a verified sequence; freedom should match variability/consequence.
Mechanism
List outcomes, variable parameters, verified premises and failure costs. Use goals for high freedom, parameterized recipes for medium and checked exact sequences for low, explaining constraints. Verify current environment/authority before execution. Missing safe paths remain gaps rather than invented recipes.
Bad example
Use rigid commands everywhere or say do what seems best for destructive migration without premises.
Good example
Allow evidence-based review; teaching migration uses the specified sequence only with confirmed tools/backups/permissions. State variable parameters and stop dependent actions with missing conditions. Precision alone is not safety.
Why the change matters
Degrees of freedom preserve valid judgment while constraining fragile steps. Reasons/premises make specificity contractual rather than stylistic.
Observable expectation
Different valid review paths pass; missing required migration validation fails. Allowed formatting changes differ from changing fixed targets. Without real contracts, present a draft sequence rather than verified commands.
Limits
Exactness grants neither correctness nor authority and updates stale commands. Risk does not mechanically imply one route. Frozen scripts illustrate only; no migration ran.