Key answer
Locate the obstruction before choosing a change; not every failure is a prompting problem. Rephrasing addresses misunderstanding, new sources information gaps, tools execution/calculation, and changed goals new tradeoffs you must accept.
Full explanation
Use observable differences. Sorting by date instead of amount calls for clarification; an unknown real datum needs sources; repeated arithmetic errors with complete data may need spreadsheets/code; missing access needs permissions or another route. If goals and resources conflict, explain and decide scope rather than silently lowering standards.
Tyen et al. found true error locations improved correction across five reasoning tasks: diagnosis differs from repeated self-check requests. Study Laban et al. suggests consolidating valid requirements before retrying when early assumptions have derailed a conversation. Section 7.4
Pause repeated generation. Compare success criteria and the last two results, locate remaining failures and distinguish missing material, misread requirements, reasoning errors and tool problems. Test a minimal change that can diagnose the cause; compare and retain correct work. Explain any required goal/budget change for my decision.
Minimal change clarifies cause; it does not mean every complex fault needs one-character edits. Retain a known failing case, verify it is fixed, then check for regressions.
If failures persist without new sources, methods or evidence, stop repeating that route. Use an evidenced alternative or deliver current artifacts with specific blockers. Make clear whether methods or goals changed.