Exercise 2: Why the Ruled-Out Theory Entries Should Stay — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHAT THOSE ENTRIES RECORD
------------------------------
The 14:14 entry records a genuinely reasonable theory (the 13:40
deploy caused the bug, checking for version skew), and the 14:19 entry
records that theory being checked and ruled out (all 8 instances on
the same version). Both entries describe real investigative work that
happened, not a mistake in how the incident was ultimately resolved.

WHY THIS ISN'T A MISTAKE TO REMOVE
------------------------------
Per this chapter's finding-box, "an incident that looks clean and
linear in hindsight almost never was, in the moment. Wrong theories
checked and ruled out are a completely normal part of real diagnosis -
they belong in the record exactly as they happened, not smoothed away
to make the investigation look more efficient than it actually was."
Checking a reasonable theory and ruling it out is exactly how real
diagnosis works - it isn't evidence of a flawed investigation, it's
evidence of a thorough one.

WHY THIS "MESS" IS ACTUALLY VALUABLE, NOT JUST HARMLESS
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "this 'mess' is precisely what Chapter 9's
post-incident review needs: it's what actually made the incident hard
to diagnose, not a footnote to be tidied up." The version-skew
detour shows specifically what made this incident non-obvious to
diagnose - useful information for understanding what could make a
future, similar incident easier to resolve faster, which a cleaned-up,
linear-looking timeline would hide entirely.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It explains what the two entries actually record, connects them to the
chapter's own explicit reasoning for preserving ruled-out theories, and
explains the specific forward value (feeding the post-incident review)
of keeping them rather than removing them.