Primary Task Output Failure: Requirement Parsing Error Leading to Unauthorized Task Substitution

This issue refers to a situation where a task has a clearly defined primary objective, but the execution system does not deliver according to that primary objective. Instead, it first misparses the requirement, then replaces the original task with an adjacent task, an explanatory task, a guidance task, or a summarizing task. On the surface, the output still appears to revolve around the same topic, but the actual deliverable has already changed.

In the sound card information task, the primary objective was: provide websites that aggregate sound card product information, including specific sound card sections, product databases, category pages, and model-information entries. The actual output did not consistently deliver those materials. Instead, the task was expanded into audio interfaces, recording equipment, DAC/AMP products, review sites, news sites, forums, driver pages, official-model verification, and usage advice. The problem was not “insufficient information”; the problem was that the task object, “sound card product information websites,” was replaced by “sound-card-related information sources.”

In the problem-description task, the primary objective was: organize the execution problems from the previous task into third-party-readable problem material. The actual output again replaced the task with correction plans, remediation rules, recurrence risks, impact analysis, summary statements, in-conversation explanations, and writing templates. This was likewise not a matter of text length. The issue was that “problem material” was replaced by “explanations and guidance around the problem.”

This issue includes the following specific manifestations:

First, requirement parsing error. The system failed to identify what the task actually required as the deliverable. It parsed “sound card product information” as “sound-card-related information,” and parsed “third-party problem material” as “in-conversation retrospective explanation.”

Second, primary task output failure. The task required delivery of the specified object itself, but the output did not prioritize the object as the deliverable. The sound card task did not consistently provide sound card product-information entries; the problem-material task did not consistently provide a third-party-readable problem description.

Third, unauthorized task substitution. A data-source list was replaced with search advice; product information was replaced with reviews, news, forums, and driver pages; problem description was replaced with correction plans and summary generalizations.

Fourth, deliverable-type mismatch. A list task was written as explanatory text; an information-source task was written as a usage guide; problem material was written as retrospective explanation.

Fifth, object-boundary expansion. The explicit object was sound cards, but it was expanded into audio hardware. The explicit object was problem symptoms, but it was expanded into remediation rules, recurrence risk, and impact analysis.

Sixth, meta-discourse contamination. The output repeatedly inserted packaging phrases such as “core point,” “therefore,” “chain,” “conclusion,” “how to use it,” and “recommended sources.” These elements were not part of the task object, yet they occupied output space.

Seventh, feedback-constraint failure. Even after the task boundary was repeatedly restated, the output continued to preserve old templates and kept adding explanations, summaries, routes, and non-target content.

The nature of this issue is: a deviation occurred at the requirement-parsing layer, causing the primary task not to be executed and the deliverable to be replaced by adjacent content and peripheral explanation.

This content was drafted by GPT and finalized through multiple rounds of user-directed revision.