8 Comments
User's avatar
Bin Jiang's avatar

I felt like 10k/2 people just ran to my account. Already pumped. Thanks.

Anfernee's avatar

Welcome ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป

Robin Kai's avatar

Thanks for mention my story.

Anfernee's avatar

Welcome. Lots of great tips from both of you.

Thibaut Buewaert's avatar

This analysis hits the nail on the head. The 'Coding vs. Everything Else' distinction is the Rosetta Stone of AI productivity.

As you rightly point out, developers have it 'easy': the compiler provides the Hard Boundaries. If the syntax is wrong, it fails. The context is enforced by the code itself. In marketing or strategy, the medium is 'soft'. The AI drowns in ambiguity because there is no compiler to scream 'Error!'.

In my experience running a BU in a marketing industry, the only way to fix Context Fragmentation isn't to chat more (which just fragments it further), but to simulate a compiler. We had to stop treating prompts as 'conversations' and start treating them as 'executable specifications'.

This means :

1/ Injecting Artificial Hard Boundaries: We don't ask for a 'good article', we inject a rigid 'Constitution' that acts as a logic gate.

2/ Automating Context (Zero Hardcode): Instead of forcing a human to hold the context in their head (which causes the fragmentation you describe), we feed the system a 'Golden Sample' and force it to compile its own context rules before generating a single word.

We effectively turned 'soft' creative work into 'hard' engineering problems. Since then, the fragmentation issue has vanished.

Brilliant piece.

Anfernee's avatar

Those are great strategies!

CK's avatar

Another powerful article.

Context engineering > prompt engineering.

Will save this!

Anfernee's avatar

Thank you for the comment + restack. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป