It's really hard for one lad to do all four. The architecture I landed on after watching my brand fail, and the voice deliver inaccurate and not brand specific answers is four lad. Lad one is the immutable identity. The brand structurally cannot say these things. These are hard rules. They cannot be overwritten by anything below it, not by venue config, not by user instruction, not by anything. Lad two is the situational mode. It's what shifts when the user's state shift. Who are they? What are they going through right now? And the real-time conditions. Lad three is the exampled anchored voice. It's the warmth, the phrases, the dials, the tone guide. It's where most teams start and stop. Then lad four is the post-generation veto. It's the cheap final pass that catches what the other three miss. The reason one layer approaches fail is that the single system prompt can't simultaneously be situational, expressive, and self-checking. So, it handles the middle layer or two reasonably well, but falls apart in the edges. Before this architecture, my system had 24 different system prompts scattered across the code base. Half dozen named Sage, someone named Less, someone named Venue. Every surface had its own idea as to who it was. Now every surface composes its system through prompt through one assembly. The comment is basically the outline of this talk. It's a single entry point. Every narrator goes through it to compose its system prompt. It's to replace that 24-point ad hoc system with one canonical full last stack. The order is load-bearing. Hard rules first, task to last.