Challenge 2: Why Post-Hoc Zoom Is Still a Real Criterion 1 Win --
Solution Walkthrough

Chapter 2's legibility criterion is about the end result a viewer
actually sees -- whether code stays readable at real resolution after
compression -- not about which specific mechanism produced that
result. Trupeer's auto-zoom works by analyzing the already-recorded
footage afterward and magnifying the relevant area around each click
or action, rather than magnifying live as you record the way Chapters
3-5's capture-time recorders do. The mechanism is genuinely different
-- post-processing an existing video file versus reacting to cursor
movement in real time -- but the practical outcome for a viewer is the
same: code that would otherwise be shown at a shrunk, hard-to-read
size in the raw recording ends up magnified in the final output either
way.

This is exactly why it counts as a real win over DemoPolish
specifically: DemoPolish's own pipeline (Chapter 6) touches audio
only and leaves the visual recording completely untouched, so any
legibility problem in the raw footage passes straight through to the
final video unchanged. Trupeer's post-hoc zoom actually intervenes on
the visual side, which is a genuine capability DemoPolish simply
doesn't have, regardless of the different underlying mechanism from
the capture-time tools.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This exercise checks that the reader evaluates tools against Chapter
2's criteria by outcome, not by mechanism -- recognizing that "when
and how" a zoom happens can differ (live vs. post-hoc) while still
producing the same legibility benefit, and that this outcome-based
comparison is what actually makes Trupeer meaningfully better than
DemoPolish here.