Turn More Prompt into a reviewable shot contract.

Write the invariant shot intent first

For More Prompt, state the subject, environment, action objective, emotional beat, and end condition in plain production language. These invariants keep general video prompts variants comparable instead of producing unrelated ideas. For this section 1, save a acceptance matrix; have the prompt designer review editability; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a stakeholder sign-off until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Turn the topic into a repeatable method

Move from definition to a small practice sequence, then review the result against explicit craft, rights, and delivery checks. Keep vendor-specific behavior outside the method unless a source verifies it. For this section 2, save a input manifest; have the media owner review motion coherence; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a stakeholder sign-off until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Layer camera, timing, continuity, and sound

Add framing and camera movement only when they support the action. Mark temporal beats, preserve identity and environment anchors, describe sound as intent rather than a guaranteed feature, and name artifacts or changes to avoid. For this section 3, save a delivery checklist; have the technical reviewer review licensing; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a stakeholder sign-off until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

• Subject and action — record asset ledger, legal reviewer, temporal stability, and reproducible test; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.
• Framing and camera relationship — record versioned handoff, prompt designer, revision control, and reproducible test; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.
• Beat order and end state — record rights record, creative producer, reference integrity, and reproducible test; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.
• Continuity, sound intent, and exclusions — record input manifest, producer, message clarity, and reproducible test; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Create controlled prompt variants

Change one meaningful dimension per version, such as shot size, movement, pacing, or performance intensity. Label the hypothesis for each variant so review can identify which instruction caused the difference. For this section 4, save a versioned handoff; have the post supervisor review source rights; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a stakeholder sign-off until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Review the output without inventing model controls

Check whether the requested action reads clearly, the camera supports the beat, references remain coherent, and the ending is usable. A prompt template does not prove that any named model, duration, audio mode, or parameter is available. For this section 5, save a rights record; have the art director review revision control; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a stakeholder sign-off until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Keep the evidence ledger attached to the decision

Partial evidence was supplied, but it does not establish product support or a complete capability, customer, or performance claim. Record the source, verification date, claim scope, unresolved gap, and the decision that the evidence can support. Search demand must never be reused as capability proof. For this section 6, save a decision memo; have the prompt designer review action readability; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a versioned review until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Build a specific test brief for more prompt

Start with a bounded text brief with visible constraints and an end state. Define one observable change, protected details, a stopping rule, and the named reviewer. The intended output is a reusable prompt contract with controlled variants. Test one variable per version, preserve the source and settings, and compare results at the actual delivery size instead of choosing from an unrecorded impression. For this topic test, save a annotated source board; have the creative producer review delivery fit; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a dated decision until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

• Primary query: more prompt; test record: evidence ledger, post supervisor, input fidelity, and production checkpoint; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.
• Editorial owner: keyword-expansion:0180; decision record: evidence ledger, rights reviewer, revision control, and production checkpoint; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.
• Source scope: a user-provided competitor-gap export dated 2026-08-05 supports topic prioritization only; source review: rights record, editor, claim support, and workflow decision; keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.

Separate topic fit from product proof

A dated, user-provided competitor-gap export supports only the decision to cover “more prompt.” It does not prove audience demand, SEELE capability, third-party behavior, commercial value, or a likely outcome. Verify product-specific statements against current first-party documentation and a recorded representative test. For this source review, save a camera plan; have the prompt designer review licensing; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a production checkpoint until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from more assumptions.