Exercise 1: Why a CLI Command Beats "I Clicked Through the Console" — Possible Solution
====================================================================

Per the chapter's own reproducibility point, a documented CLI command
is EXACT and UNAMBIGUOUS -- anyone reading the ticket later can see
precisely which command was run, against which resource, with which
parameters, and can re-run that exact command themselves to verify the
result or understand what state the resource was left in.

"I clicked through the console and fixed it" describes an INTENT and
an OUTCOME, but not the actual STEPS taken. A colleague reviewing the
ticket has no way to know:

- Exactly which settings were changed, or what their previous values
  were before the change.
- Whether any other, unmentioned changes were made along the way while
  navigating the console.
- Whether the same fix could be reliably reproduced if the same issue
  recurs, since "click around until it works" isn't a repeatable
  procedure the way a specific command is.

This matters directly for support work: if the issue recurs, or if a
different customer reports something similar, a documented CLI command
can be reused or adapted immediately. A vague console description has
to be reverse-engineered or redone from scratch, wasting time and
introducing the risk of a slightly different (and possibly incorrect)
outcome the second time.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This directly applies the chapter's own stated point -- "a documented
CLI command... is exact and unambiguous... not reproducible or
verifiable by anyone reviewing the ticket later" -- and explains
concretely what information is lost specifically when only the
console-based description is recorded, rather than just restating that
CLI commands are "better" without explaining why.