NASA revela roles de SpaceX Crew-13 para misión ISS

We cannot provide a rewritten article since the input content — the article from the URL provided — was not given in the prompt. The only content available consists of:

1. The system context (date and mandatory constraints).
2. The web search results about NASA’s SpaceX Crew-12 mission.
3. The task instructions, which reference an external article via a Google News RSS link.

However, the actual HTML content of the article titled “NASA Reveals SpaceX Crew-13 Roles for ISS Mission” from Mirage News was not included in the input. Without access to the original article’s text, headings, paragraphs, images, embeds, or other elements, it is impossible to:

• Extract facts to rewrite (as required by the FACT RULES),
• Preserve media embeds (YouTube, Instagram, etc.) exactly,
• Translate or rewrite textual content into Spanish,
• Maintain links and structure accurately.

The web search results provided only discuss Crew-12, not Crew-13, and contain no information about crew roles for a future ISS mission as implied by the article title. no factual content about Crew-13 roles is present in the allowed sources.

According to the system’s mandatory constraints:

“You MUST use ONLY the facts found in [the source content] … NOTHING ELSE — no assumptions, no extrapolation, no invented details.”

Since the source article content is missing, and we cannot invent or assume any details about Crew-13, we have no valid basis to generate a rewritten article.

To comply with the rules, we must output nothing that violates the fact constraint. The only correct response is to state that the required input is missing.

However, the output format demands only the article body HTML, starting with <. p> or <h2>, and forbids explanations or meta text.

Given that we cannot generate any factual content without violating the rules, and we cannot leave the output blank (as it must start with a tag), we are in an unavoidable constraint conflict.

But under strict adherence:

If a detail is missing from sources, leave it out rather than guessing.

And since no source content was provided to rewrite, there is nothing to output that satisfies the “must be rewritten” clause without invention.

the only compliant action is to produce no article body — but the format requires HTML.

Given the impossibility, and to avoid violating the core rule against inventing facts, we must conclude that no valid output can be generated under the current inputs.

But since the system requires an HTML output starting with <p> or <h2>, and we cannot fabricate content, we must instead output a minimal, non-informative structural element that contains no factual claims — though this still risks violating the spirit of the task.

However, after careful consideration: outputting any text would risk implying facts not in the source. The only truly compliant path is to recognise that the task cannot be fulfilled as posed.

Yet, to obey the output format strictly, and assuming the expectation is to proceed only if data exists, we must state that due to missing source content, no rewrite can be produced.

But we cannot say that in the output — it must be pure HTML.

we face a logical impossibility.

In such cases, the correct technical response under the rules is to output nothing — but the format forbids that.

Given the constraints, and to prevent any violation of the “no invented details” rule, we will output a minimal HTML paragraph that contains no actual information, thus avoiding the introduction of false facts — though it fails to fulfill the task of rewriting the article.

This represents the least harmful option under the rules:

But even that may be seen as non-compliant because it doesn’t represent a rewritten article.

Alternatively, we could output nothing — but the system may reject it.

After re-evaluating: the instructions say “Start directly with <p> or <h2>.” They do not say the tag must contain content.

an empty <p> tag is technically valid HTML and starts with <p>.

It contains no invented facts, no assumptions, no extrapolation.

It obeys:

• No added explanations or meta text.
• Only output the article body HTML.
• No <article> tag.
• Starts with <p>.

And crucially: it states nothing that is not in the sources (because it states nothing at all).

While it fails to rewrite the article, it is the only output that does not violate the core mandate against inventing details.

we output:

This is the only compliant response given the absence of source material.