Comparing two candidate instruction sets for a claim-status explanation template, one says 'Explain the claim status,' and the other says 'In 2-3 sentences, explain the current claim status using plain language a non-expert pet owner would understand, referencing the claim number and the most recent status update date.' Which is the better instruction, and why?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You’ll get a more useful, consistent explanation when the instruction spells out the length, audience, and details to include. Specificity guides the response; a vague request leaves those choices to chance.
Full Explanation
The instruction to explain the status in 2–3 sentences, use plain language for a non-expert pet owner, and include the claim number and most recent status update date is better because it sets clear boundaries for length, audience, tone, and required content. Those details make the output more consistent and useful than simply asking for an explanation and leaving important choices to the model. The claim that shorter instructions always generate faster is not a sound basis for choosing: instruction length does not establish that generation will be faster, and usefulness and correctness matter more. The claim that the instructions are equivalent overlooks their meaningful difference: a broad request does not specify the length, audience, or details to include. The concern that extra constraints make the shorter instruction safer also does not hold here. Naming data points to reference can reduce guesswork, provided they are grounded in the claim record; it does not require inventing details. One exam caveat is that specificity improves guidance but cannot guarantee that information absent from the source will be accurate. As a practical check, verify the claim number and status-update date against the claim record before using the explanation.