BC-0235 · TROUBLESHOOTING
Editorial review 2026-09-27
How to Rewrite a Blocked Prompt More Originally
An original rewrite should work without the borrowed reference that defined the blocked prompt. Keep only a legitimate general interaction, then choose your own setting, roles, objective, visual language and progression. Do not measure originality by the number of renamed nouns or treat it as a filter-passing trick.
Symptom
A proposed rewrite still depends on the blocked reference despite renamed surface details.
Immediate action
Explain the legitimate interaction without the borrowed identity, then rebuild its expressive choices coherently.
Diagnostic branches
- The game cannot be explained without naming or implying the reference.
- Choose a genuinely independent premise and goal rather than a disguised comparison.
- Replacement names conceal unchanged distinctive expression.
- Redesign the relevant appearance, story and structure choices rather than counting renamed terms.
- The brief is independent but the observed result retains an unwanted resemblance.
- Review and correct the actual result without assuming the prompt established clearance.
Least-destructive change
Preserve a legitimate interaction while authoring a coherent new concept that stands on its own.
Retest
- The reference-free brief communicates its action and goal.
- Expressive choices fit the new concept rather than functioning as a renamed copy.
- No originality score, rights verdict or acceptance guarantee is inferred.
Escalation
Seek appropriate rights clarification where necessary or choose a different original concept. Repeated disguised prompts are not part of this workflow.
Working notes
Separate what the player enjoys doing from the reference's particular expression. Navigating a route, matching patterns or delivering resources can be stated as an interaction. A signature character, copied map sequence, recognizable dialogue or branded reward is a different dependency that needs an independently chosen alternative.
Make the replacement choices cohere with each other. A weather-repair setting can explain carrying instruments, reading route signals and completing station tasks. Randomly swapping names while retaining the same story beats and imagery does not produce the same coherent independent design process.
Run a reference-free explanation check. Describe the game to a reader without naming, comparing it with or hinting at the source franchise. Ask whether they can understand the action and goal from your brief alone. This is an editorial design check, not a legal test of substantial similarity or proof of rights clearance.
Inspect the output and its promotional description for leftovers. An original brief can still produce an unwanted resemblance or an inherited label in a later revision. Correct the actual issue without claiming that a name change or a successful generation settles all policy and rights questions.
Examples
- Independent brief: guide a maintenance runner through a floating observatory, carry damaged weather instruments to matching stations and reveal a clear completion signal after each repair. Use original station shapes, signage and character design; the reader needs no franchise reference to understand the loop.
- Rewrite ledger: general interaction retained / borrowed expression removed / independent design choice / reason it fits the new setting / remaining uncertainty. Its purpose is coherent authorship, not computing a percentage of originality.