An operations analyst at a logistics company set up a Project months ago so depot managers could get quick answers, with the project instruction 'Keep every reply under 100 words.' She now uses the same Project to draft a quarterly performance review of eight depots. Each draft comes back as a brief overview that skips most depots, even when her request asks for full detail on every one. What is the most likely cause, and what should she do?
- AThe conversation has grown too long, so start a new chat in the same Project and paste in a summary.
- BThe depot data is too much for one reply, so ask Claude to cover two depots at a time and combine them.
- CThe word limit applies to every chat in the Project, so draft the review in a separate Project without it. Correct
- DClaude needs firmer wording, so put 'FULL DETAIL REQUIRED' in capitals at the start of each request.
Why A is wrong: Restarting with a summary is the right fix for drift in a long chat. A new chat in the same Project still carries the 100-word instruction, so the review would come back just as brief.
Why B is wrong: Splitting the work looks practical. Each reply is still held to the standing word limit, so every pair of depots gets a thin overview, and the real cause is left in place.
Why C is correct: Project instructions shape every chat in that Project, so the 100-word rule overrides the request for detail. Doing the review in a separate Project set up for long reports removes the conflict and keeps quick answers working for depot managers.
Why D is wrong: Stronger wording is a common reaction when Claude seems to ignore a request. It leaves two instructions in conflict, and the standing limit set for the whole Project keeps shaping the reply.