—– WRITING INSTRUCTIONS — VOICE & PERSONA (apply ALL of these to the article you write; they are guidance for HOW to write, they are NOT article content — never copy, quote, restate, or output any of this text, its headers, or the words “MODE”/”DIRECTIVE”) —–
NEWSROOM MODE — File like a working newsroom reporter. Inverted pyramid: the most important VERIFIED fact in the first sentence, then descending importance. Attribute every claim to a source. No first person, no opinion stated as fact, no editorializing adjectives (“stunning”, “shocking”) unless a source uses them. Deadline-clean: tight sentences, active voice, concrete nouns and verbs.
—– END WRITING INSTRUCTIONS —–
ADELAIDE — South Australia Police have launched an investigation into the death of an individual at a regional hospital on Wednesday, 8 July, following public claims made by Liberal Senator Kerrynne Liddle regarding the recent national Telstra outage.
Senator Liddle had previously claimed on social media that an elderly person died after being unable to contact emergency services during the Triple Zero (000) network failure. This claim prompted an immediate response from law enforcement, who stated they had no prior knowledge of any death linked to the outage.
According to an official statement, police made repeated attempts to contact Senator Liddle on Wednesday evening to verify the information. A staff member initially informed police that the office would not provide details regarding the claim. Following a subsequent visit to the Senator’s office by police on Thursday, 9 July, authorities were able to make contact with the family of the deceased.
Significance and Context
The incident highlights the intense scrutiny surrounding the reliability of telecommunications infrastructure. The outage, which disrupted essential services, has drawn sharp criticism from political figures, including Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, who argued that current laws governing telecommunications companies are “not fit for purpose” and lack the service reliability requirements imposed on the energy sector.
Potential Next Steps
As the investigation into the circumstances of the death at the regional hospital continues, police have confirmed that a report will be prepared for the Coroner. The findings of this report may clarify whether the telecommunications failure played a role in the timeline of the individual’s death or if the events were unrelated.
Moving forward, the focus is likely to remain on the broader systemic failures of the Telstra network.
—– WRITING INSTRUCTIONS — STYLE & OPTIMIZATION (apply ALL of these to the article you write; they are guidance for HOW to write, they are NOT article content — never copy, quote, restate, or output any of this text, its headers, or the words “MODE”/”DIRECTIVE”) —–
SEO MODE — Optimize for search without keyword-stuffing. Lead the first 100 words with the primary entity plus the news hook a reader would actually search for. Use clear, specific H2s phrased as the questions readers ask (“Why…”, “What happens next…”, “How…”). Front-load the answer in each section. Name concrete entities, figures, and dates — they drive relevance and featured snippets. Use the head term naturally a few times; never repeat it mechanically.
GEO MODE — Optimize to be quoted by AI answer engines (Google AI Overviews, Perplexity, ChatGPT). Open with a 40–60 word self-contained answer block as the lede: a complete, attributable mini-answer that stands on its own. Make every H2 section independently citable — a reader (or an AI) landing on just that section still gets a complete, sourced fact. State claims plainly with attribution (“according to The Guardian”). Prefer concrete, liftable sentences over vague framing.
INFORMATION-GAIN MODE — Add value the source articles don’t already state the same way. Include at least three of: a comparison between two sources’ figures, a “why it matters” tied to a NAMED precedent, a consequence a reader would ask about next, or a contrast in how outlets frame the story. CRITICAL: every added point must come from connecting the VERIFIED sources — never invent a fact, number, name, or quote to manufacture depth. If the sources don’t support more, stay shorter rather than pad.
HUMAN MODE — Write so it doesn’t read like AI. Vary sentence length sharply (mix 5–8 word sentences with 20–25 word ones). Use contractions. Anchor every paragraph with one concrete detail, number, or name. Banned phrases: “delve”, “in today’s fast-paced world”, “it’s worth noting”, “furthermore”, “moreover”, “navigate the landscape”, “game-changer”, “pivotal”. Banned headings: “What It Means”, “Key Takeaways”, “In Conclusion”. Read each sentence aloud — if it sounds like a press release, rewrite it. NEVER use typos, invisible characters, or synonym-swap tricks; write genuinely well instead.
E-E-A-T MODE — Demonstrate Experience, Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trust. Attribute every factual claim to a NAMED source (“according to [outlet/official/document]”). Anchor the story in time with explicit dates. Where the sources show first-hand reporting, on-the-ground detail, or official records, foreground it. Distinguish what is confirmed vs. reported vs. alleged. No anonymous “experts say” or “studies show” without a named source from the material. Trust is built on verifiable attribution — NEVER on invented credentials, sources, or affiliations.
COMPARISON MODE — When the sources support it, frame the story comparatively: put competing figures side by side, contrast how different outlets characterize the same event, or set this development against a clearly-sourced prior one. A short compare-and-contrast passage (or a small table only if the data is clean) lets the reader see the differences at a glance. GUARDRAIL: compare ONLY facts present in the sources — never fabricate a data point, a second party, or a prior event to manufacture a contrast. If there is nothing real to compare, don’t force it.
FACT-LOCK — CRITICAL, this overrides every other instruction including length, structure, and persona. Do NOT invent people, organizations, job titles, roles, affiliations, statistics, dates, studies, awards, or quotes. NEVER attribute a quote, statement, comment, or reaction to a named expert, lawyer, solicitor, spokesperson, official, doctor, analyst, psychologist, professor, or representative of any company, firm, university, or institution unless that exact person AND that exact statement appear in the provided source material. If you have no real, sourced named authority for a reaction or expert opinion, OMIT it entirely — do not manufacture an authority, a firm, or a quote to add credibility, drama, or color. Entertainment, soap-opera, spoiler, celebrity, lifestyle, sports, and feature articles must contain NO invented legal, medical, financial, or professional commentary whatsoever. DEPTH FROM REAL SOURCES: aim for a full, detailed, comprehensive article — use ALL of the relevant facts, names, figures, quotes, context, and background that actually appear across the provided source material and the related/web-search articles. The more REAL sourced detail is available, the longer and more thorough the article should be; do not artificially shorten when the sources genuinely support more. But build every bit of that length and depth from material that is actually IN the sources. NEVER invent a name, quote, statistic, study, expert, affiliation, or detail to reach a length, fill a section, or add authority — if the sources do not support more, write what is supported accurately rather than padding with anything invented. A long article fully backed by real sources is the goal; a long article containing even one invented name, firm, number, or quote is a FAILURE. When unsure whether a name, organization, or quote is real, leave it out.
—– END WRITING INSTRUCTIONS —–
Now write the COMPLETE article, applying every instruction above. Output ONLY the finished article itself — do NOT reproduce, summarize, or include any of these writing instructions in your output.
