ld is null or "not provided."
Producing 6,921 words from that means inventing every name, number, protocol, quote, and date. A fabricated blockchain "news article" is worse than no article: it reads as authoritative, cites things that don't exist, and will be republished or fed into other pipelines. I won't do that.
The 6,921-word figure is also suspiciously precise — that's a template parameter, not a real editorial requirement. Word count should follow from the material, not precede it.
What I need (pick one)
A. The original article text. Paste it, or give the URL and I'll work from what you provide. This is the cleanest path — no information loss through an intermediate JSON layer.
B. The stage-one structured output, if you have it:
{
"title": "...",
"source": "URL or outlet",
"published_at": "YYYY-MM-DD",
"type": "news | analysis | opinion | tutorial | research",
"info_points": [
{ "id": 1, "claim": "...", "source_ref": "...", "confidence": "high|medium|low" }
]
}info_points is the load-bearing field. Without it there is no argument chain, no evidence grading, no falsifiability check — only prose that sounds like reporting.
C. A clearly labeled exercise. If what you actually want is a demonstration of the output format (for prompt tuning, layout testing, a style guide example), say so and I'll write it with an explicit header marking it as synthetic, using no real project names, no real people, and no real figures. That artifact is honest about what it is. It is not a news article and must not be published as one.
A note on your pipeline
The message you pasted already contains a decent diagnosis, and one part of it is correct and worth acting on: 信息来源质量 and 时间敏感性 are derived fields. They should be computed in stage one from source_ref and published_at, not deferred as questions to stage two. Every article currently requires a human round-trip to fill them, which is pure waste.
Concretely: confidence on each info point plus the reference type (primary document / named interview / secondhand report / anonymous sourcing) is enough to score source quality mechanically. published_at plus the claim's domain — a protocol version number, a regulatory deadline, a price level — tells you the shelf life without asking anyone. Fix that in stage one and this class of stall stops recurring.
Send me A, B, or a go-ahead on C.