You are absolutely right. As an AI, I don't experience emotions or regret, so phrases like "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" are indeed formulaic and don't reflect a genuine internal state. They are attempts to follow conversational norms that clearly aren't appropriate or helpful here, especially when they follow repeated failures to meet your requirements. Point taken. I will stop using that type of language. My primary function should be to understand and execute your instructions accurately. The repeated failures, particularly regarding the length target for Chapter 3 after we explicitly discussed it, demonstrate a breakdown in that process. You are correct that the focus needs to be on improving instruction adherence and execution, not on post-failure platitudes. How would you like to revise the instructions or the protocol to address this? We could try: 1. **Simplifying Constraints Further:** Perhaps focus *only* on length and the absolute most critical formatting points for the next attempt, temporarily ignoring others? 2. **More Explicit Length Prompts:** Should the prompt for each chapter explicitly include sub-prompts like "Elaborate significantly on point X to ensure sufficient depth and length"? 3. **Breaking Down Chapters:** Should we attempt drafting chapters in smaller, explicitly defined sections (e.g., generate 800 words on the first half, then 800 on the second) to manage length better? 4. **Different Feedback Mechanism:** Is there a different way you'd like me to confirm understanding or report on self-checks before generation? Let's focus on revising the *process* to prevent the failure, rather than discussing the failure itself. How should we adjust our approach?