Exercise 3: Recommending an Approach for a Small Two-Service, One-Team Cluster — Possible Solution
====================================================================

Recommendation: a single static prometheus.yml, not the Prometheus
Operator with ServiceMonitors.

Justification:

The chapter's own warn-box is explicit that the Operator/ServiceMonitor
pattern is genuinely MORE setup than a single static config file, and
that this added complexity is worth taking on specifically once there
are enough services and teams that self-service, declarative scrape
configuration starts paying for itself -- not automatically, and not
regardless of cluster size.

A cluster with only two services and a single team sits well below
that threshold. There's no real coordination problem to solve here:
one team can simply hand-edit one prometheus.yml file to add or change
scrape targets for two services without any meaningful friction, and
there's no scenario where multiple independent teams need to
self-serve their own scrape configuration without stepping on each
other's changes -- the exact problem ServiceMonitors are actually
designed to solve. Introducing the Prometheus Operator here would mean
taking on an entirely new class of Kubernetes object (Custom
Resources), a new component to deploy and keep healthy, and more
moving pieces to reason about during troubleshooting -- all to solve a
coordination problem this specific cluster doesn't actually have. The
simpler static-config approach directly matches the chapter's own
stated condition for when the added complexity isn't yet justified.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This makes a clear recommendation and justifies it by directly
applying the chapter's own stated scale threshold to the specific
numbers given (two services, one team), rather than defaulting to
"the more advanced tool is always better."