Exercise 2: A Less Compelling Opportunity — Possible Solution
====================================================================

SETUP
------------------------------
    new_opportunity's value changed from 9 to 3

RESULTS
------------------------------
    FIXED PLAN: ['feature A', 'feature B', 'feature C'], total value: 24
    RE-PRIORITIZED: ['feature A', 'feature B', 'feature C'], total value: 24
    Difference: 0

With the new opportunity's value lowered to 3 - below feature B (8)
and feature C (6), the two items already in the plan - the
re-prioritization logic naturally leaves the plan unchanged. Both
approaches deliver the identical set of features and the identical
total value.

WHAT THIS REVEALS
------------------------------
The chapter's own 12.5% improvement wasn't a fixed property of "being
able to respond to change" in general - it was specific to THAT
opportunity genuinely being worth more (9) than the plan's own
lowest-priority remaining item (C, worth 6) at the time it was
discovered. A re-prioritizable backlog doesn't manufacture value out
of flexibility alone; it only captures value that's actually there to
capture. When the "new" thing isn't actually better than what's
already planned, responding to it costs nothing (this simulation
correctly declines to include it) but also gains nothing.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This is an important, honest correction to a naive reading of
"responding to change is always good": the real claim this chapter
supports is narrower and more defensible - having the OPTION to
respond to change has value precisely because some future information
will turn out to matter, without knowing in advance which information
that will be. A rigid plan can't capture that value even when it
appears; a flexible one captures it when it's real and correctly
ignores it when it isn't, which is exactly what this exercise's own
result demonstrates.