A performance office embeds success criteria in prompts such as must include hours, address, and an ADA note. What technique is used?

Measurable civic drafts need success criteria in the prompt. Embedding requirements such as must include hours, address, and an ADA note places evaluation rubrics inside the generation request so outputs can be checked against concrete fields. Performance offices use that technique to reduce incomplete public notices that omit accessibility or location essentials residents need. Few-shot exemplar drafts with success-criteria inside prompts for measurable civic outputs fail because showing example drafts that happen to contain those fields teaches by illustration rather than stating an explicit checkable rubric such as must include hours, address, and an ADA note. Reasoning chains restating success-criteria inside prompts for measurable civic outputs fail because restating the criteria in step-by-step reasoning focuses on intermediate thought process rather than embedding a direct evaluation rubric that the output must satisfy with hours, address, and ADA notes. Persona roles restating success-criteria inside prompts for measurable civic outputs fail because adopting a resident-facing role that repeats the criteria centers on empathetic tone rather than imposing measurable requirements to include hours, address, and ADA notes. Exam caveat: listing criteria improves completeness; it does not prove factual correctness of the hours or ADA statement. Staff must validate those fields against facility data and accessibility policy. Operational check: put a bullet rubric in the prompt; run an automated or checklist pass confirming each required field is present; block publication until hours, address, and ADA note are verified against source systems.