Exercise 1: Why Concrete Criteria Matter More Than the Specific Numbers — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHAT THIS CHAPTER SAYS ABOUT THE THRESHOLDS
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "the exact thresholds genuinely vary by organization
- a payment processor's own definition of SEV1 is stricter than a
marketing blog's." Different organizations legitimately draw the line
in different places depending on what's actually at stake for them.

WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS INSTEAD
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "the framework's real value isn't the specific
numbers; it's having agreed-upon, written criteria that different
people apply consistently, rather than each person's own individual
gut feeling about how bad something seems." The value comes from
consistency across people, not from any particular threshold being the
"correct" one.

WHY VAGUE CRITERIA FAIL EVEN WITH A FRAMEWORK IN PLACE
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "vague criteria don't resolve ambiguity, they just
relocate it: two people will still disagree about whether something
counts as 'very bad,' exactly as they would have without a framework
at all." Simply having a framework labeled "SEV1-SEV4" doesn't achieve
anything if the actual definitions inside it are still subjective -
the ambiguity that existed before the framework still exists, just now
hidden behind official-sounding labels.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It explains that thresholds are organization-specific by design, and
that the framework's real benefit is consistent application via
checkable criteria - explaining specifically why vague wording would
undermine that benefit even while nominally having a framework.