When a non-reasoning generative AI model produces inconsistent outputs, the most reliable improvement is to make the prompt more specific, constrained, and demonstrative of what ''good'' looks like.

A is correct because adding high-quality examples is a form of few-shot prompting. Examples act like ''training wheels'' at inference time: they show the model the desired structure, tone, level of detail, formatting rules, and boundaries. This reduces ambiguity and variance, especially for tasks like marketing copy, summaries, policy text, or customer replies. The more your examples resemble real target outputs (including edge cases), the more consistent the model's completions become.

B is correct because adding context, relevant source material, and explicit expectations narrows the model's degrees of freedom. Including the intended audience, purpose, constraints (length, voice, banned claims), and trusted reference content (approved facts, product specs, policy excerpts) helps the model stay aligned and reduces hallucinations and off-brand language. This is also where you specify acceptance criteria such as ''must include 3 bullet points,'' ''use UK English,'' or ''cite only provided text.''

C is not best: technical jargon can confuse or bias output if it's not aligned to the task; clarity beats jargon. D is not best: a single concise requirement is usually under-specified and often increases variability.