01Write the invariant shot intent first
For Random 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 shot contract; have the editor review identity consent; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a rights-cleared draft until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from random assumptions.
02Turn 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 continuity sheet; have the post supervisor review camera intent; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a rights-cleared draft until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from random assumptions.
03Layer 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 evidence ledger; have the channel owner review continuity; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a rights-cleared draft until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from random assumptions.
04Create 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 test worksheet; have the legal reviewer review temporal stability; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a reversible handoff until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from random assumptions.
05Review 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 annotated source board; have the art director review action readability; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a rights-cleared draft until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from random assumptions.
06Keep 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 frame review; have the editor review reference integrity; record the failed case as well as the accepted one; and do not advance it beyond a reversible handoff until the named limitation is resolved. Keep prompt evidence separate from random assumptions.
07Build a specific test brief for random 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 test worksheet; have the art director review reference integrity; 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 random assumptions.
08Separate topic fit from product proof
A dated, user-provided competitor-gap export supports only the decision to cover “random 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 delivery checklist; have the prompt designer review action readability; 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 random assumptions.