Long source packets consume resources without improving results. The useful response is a targeted correction with an observable acceptance check. That keeps the repair tied to the problem instead of turning it into an open-ended redesign.
Find the likely cause
Irrelevant material is included by default.
Treat this as an explanation to verify against the actual work. Look at the input, the relevant decision, and the final result together. If the evidence does not support this diagnosis, investigate the mismatch before applying a convenient but unrelated fix.
Make the targeted correction
Select the sources needed for the specific task.
Cost control should reduce wasted work while preserving the quality needed for the final use.
Check that the repair worked
Verify that trimming input does not remove essential evidence.
Repeat the check on the final version that the reader or customer will encounter. An approved draft, a preview, and a published result can differ; the acceptance decision should concern the version people actually use.
Prevent the next related failure
A separate issue to watch for is this: automations continue spending after repeated failures. Set bounded retries and route persistent failures to review.
Monitor the useful outcome
Track total cost and human time per accepted item, including rework and failed attempts.
Keep a short record of the original symptom, the evidence behind the diagnosis, and the result of the acceptance check. That record makes the solution reusable when the same condition appears again, without assuming that every superficially similar problem has the same cause.