Keeping a character and a look consistent across shots

In practice: one document for who the character is and one sheet for how the film looks, both approved once and both named by position in every prompt. Environment, props and lighting belong in those locks rather than in the improvisation of each shot. When something drifts, find the instruction that stopped being obeyed before spending anything on a re-render.

A bible that holds is specific about the things a model reinterprets when left alone: the exact face, the build, the wardrobe, and the colours that must not shift. Vague adjectives produce a different person in the next shot.

One approved sheet governs the rendering, and it is bound by position — the prompt says which attached image is the look and which is the character. A reference that is not named is treated as a suggestion.

The room, the desk, the product, the weather: the things an audience notices as wrong the instant they change between shots. They belong in the same lock as the character, not in the improvisation of each prompt.

When a shot drifts, the useful question is which instruction stopped being obeyed. If the character changed, the character reference lost its lock. If the light changed, the style sheet was not addressed. Re-rolling without that answer is how a whole day disappears.

Two shots that are individually beautiful and lit differently do not cut together. Lighting consistency is a decision to make across the film, in the style lock, rather than per shot.

Drift is almost never random and re-rolling is almost never the fix. If the face changed, the character reference lost its lock; if the light changed, the sheet was not addressed. An afternoon of re-rolls without answering that question is the most common way credits disappear.

Worth being honest about the ceiling, too. No lock holds a character perfectly for a whole film. What it does is make the failures small, occasional and diagnosable, which is what a finished film actually needs.