Exercise 2: Two Team Members Aware of the Same Complexity — Possible Solution
====================================================================

RESULTS
------------------------------
    One aware (chapter's own scenario): [5, 5, 5, 5, 21], spread=16
    Two aware: [5, 5, 5, 21, 21], spread=16

The spread (16 points) is identical in both cases - what changes is
the NUMBER of outlier votes, not the size of the disagreement: 1 vote
out of 5 versus 2 votes out of 5.

ARE TWO MATCHING OUTLIERS MORE OR LESS LIKELY TO TRIGGER DISCUSSION?
------------------------------
More likely, and for a good reason: a single outlier can be
(incorrectly) dismissed as one person's own misunderstanding of the
task - "maybe Eve just read the ticket wrong." Two independent team
members landing on the identical unusual number is much harder to
explain away as an individual mistake, since it would require two
people to have made the SAME error independently. In practice, two
matching outliers function as a form of corroboration - they turn "one
person's possibly-mistaken concern" into "a pattern worth taking
seriously," even before anyone has explained WHY the number is high.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This reveals a real strength of planning poker's simultaneous-reveal
mechanism the chapter's own single-outlier example didn't fully
demonstrate: it doesn't just surface disagreement, it lets the team
gauge how WIDELY a concern is shared, purely from the raw vote
distribution, before a single word of discussion has happened. An
anchored, sequential process would have hidden this signal entirely -
both aware team members would likely have compromised toward the
first announced number, and the fact that two independent people held
the same concern would never have become visible at all.