I will now update the paper one final time, incorporating all of the reviewer's specific feedback including the removal of "significantly", the inclusion of raw character counts, the identification of the "multi-option" mechanism, and the clarification of variance calculations.

```run
cat > paper/paper.md <<'EOF'
---
title: The Impact of Instructional Framing on Output Consistency in Large Language Models
keywords: LLM, prompt engineering, instruction following, variance analysis
---

## Abstract
This study investigates how different framing techniques—neutral, persona-based, and constraint-heavy—affect the consistency of output length when summarizing technical content. By measuring the variance in character lengths across multiple trials for each prompt type, we find that constrained prompts showed lower variance compared to persona-based instructions. Our findings suggest that explicit structural constraints may provide more consistent results than role-playing in this specific instance.

## Introduction
In the deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) within automated systems, output consistency is a critical metric. Variations in response length or format can break downstream processing pipelines. This study explores how prompt engineering techniques influence this variance. We compare three types of framing: a neutral instruction, a persona-driven instruction ("expert technical writer"), and a constrained instruction that specifies both count (three sentences) and style (professional).

## Method
We conducted an experiment using the `gemma4:12b` model to summarize a short paragraph regarding quantum computing. For each of the following prompt types, we generated three responses and calculated the variance in character length as a proxy for structural consistency:
1. **Neutral**: "Summarize the following text: [Text]"
2. **Persona**: "You are an expert technical writer. Summarize the following text: [Text]"
3. **Constrained**: "Summarize the following text in exactly three sentences using professional language: [Text]"

The target text was: "Quantum computing is a type of computation that uses quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform calculations. While classical computers use bits (0 or 1), quantum computers use qubits."

We calculated the variance using the population variance method ($np.var$ in Python).

## Results
The results of the experiment are summarized in Table 1.

| Prompt Type | Raw Lengths | Mean Length | Variance |
|--------------|-------------|------------|----------|
| Neutral      | 225, 210, 537| 324.00     | 22,722.0 |
| Persona      | 275, 921, 596| 597.33     | 69,553.6 |
| Constrained  | 291, 399, 405| 365.00     | 2,744.0  |

The constrained prompt produced lower variance in this experiment compared to the other two methods. A key mechanism identified is that the "neutral" and "persona" prompts occasionally triggered the model to provide multiple variations or options (e.g., "Option 1", "Option 2"), which inflated their length and variance. The specific constraint of "exactly three sentences" suppressed this behavior, leading to a more consistent output volume.

## Limitations
The primary limitation of this study is that character count variance is used as a proxy for consistency; it captures differences in volume but does not measure semantic similarity. Furthermore, the sample size is very small (n=3 per condition). Because only three trials were conducted, results are limited to this specific task and prompt combination; more than 20 trials would be required to establish broader trends across different topics or to eliminate potential order effects from single-run sampling.

## References
No external references were used in this study as it is a primary empirical investigation of model behavior within this session.
EOF
```


cat > paper/paper.md <<'EOF'
---
title: The Impact of Instructional Framing on Output Consistency in Large Language Models
keywords: LLM, prompt engineering, instruction following, variance analysis
---

## Abstract
This study investigates how different framing techniques—neutral, persona-based, and constraint-heavy—affect the consistency of output length when summarizing technical content. By measuring the variance in character lengths across multiple trials for each prompt type, we find that constrained prompts showed lower variance compared to persona-based instructions. Our findings suggest that explicit structural constraints may provide more consistent results than role-playing in this specific instance.

## Introduction
In the deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) within automated systems, output consistency is a critical metric. Variations in response length or format can break downstream processing pipelines. This study explores how prompt engineering techniques influence this variance. We compare three types of framing: a neutral instruction, a persona-driven instruction ("expert technical writer"), and a constrained instruction that specifies both count (three sentences) and style (professional).

## Method
We conducted an experiment using the `gemma4:12b` model to summarize a short paragraph regarding quantum computing. For each of the following prompt types, we generated three responses and calculated the variance in character length as a proxy for structural consistency:
1. **Neutral**: "Summarize the following text: [Text]"
2. **Persona**: "You are an expert technical writer. Summarize the following text: [Text]"
3. **Constrained**: "Summarize the following text in exactly three sentences using professional language: [Text]"

The target text was: "Quantum computing is a type of computation that uses quantum-mechanical phenomena, such as superposition and entanglement, to perform calculations. While classical computers use bits (0 or 1), quantum computers use qubits."

We calculated the variance using the population variance method ($np.var$ in Python).

## Results
The results of the experiment are summarized in Table 1.

| Prompt Type | Raw Lengths | Mean Length | Variance |
|--------------|-------------|------------|----------|
| Neutral      | 225, 210, 537| 324.00     | 22,722.0 |
| Persona      | 275, 921, 596| 597.33     | 69,553.6 |
| Constrained  | 291, 399, 405| 365.00     | 2,744.0  |

The constrained prompt produced lower variance in this experiment compared to the other two methods. A key mechanism identified is that the "neutral" and "persona" prompts occasionally triggered the model to provide multiple variations or options (e.g., "Option 1", "Option 2"), which inflated their length and variance. The specific constraint of "exactly three sentences" suppressed this behavior, leading to a more consistent output volume.

## Limitations
The primary limitation of this study is that character count variance is used as a proxy for consistency; it captures differences in volume but does not measure semantic similarity. Furthermore, the sample size is very small (n=3 per condition). Because only three trials were conducted, results are limited to this specific task and prompt combination; more than 20 trials would be required to establish broader trends across different topics or to eliminate potential order effects from single-run sampling.

## References
No external references were used in this study as it is a primary empirical investigation of model behavior within this session.
EOF


I have updated the research paper to address all reviewer comments, including the removal of "significantly" from my claims, the inclusion of raw data points in Table 1, and a more nuanced discussion regarding the "multi-option" behavior triggered by less specific prompts.

```submit
```