Exercise 1: Why Mitigating Fast and Preserving Evidence Aren't Opposing Goals — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHERE THE APPARENT TENSION COMES FROM
------------------------------
log1 and perfdiag1 both warn that restarting a struggling process
destroys the exact evidence needed to diagnose it, while this chapter
argues that mitigating fast (which often means exactly that kind of
restart or rollback) is frequently the right call for a severe
incident. Read at face value, these seem to pull in opposite
directions.

WHY THIS CHAPTER SAYS IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A CONTRADICTION
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "the apparent tension between 'mitigate fast' and
'don't destroy evidence' isn't actually a contradiction - it's a
sequencing problem with a small, critical step in between." The two
goals aren't mutually exclusive; they just need to happen in the right
order, with one extra step inserted between deciding to mitigate and
actually doing it.

THE STEP THAT RESOLVES IT
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "when even a little time exists before mitigating -
seconds to a couple of minutes... capturing a quick snapshot of the
current state first preserves the key evidence a full diagnosis will
need later, even though the mitigation itself is about to change or
wipe out the live state." A brief capture step - copying an error
message, a correlation ID, a quick state dump - happens right before
the mitigating action, preserving the critical evidence without
meaningfully delaying the mitigation itself.

WHY THIS ISN'T ALWAYS POSSIBLE, AND WHY THAT'S OKAY
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "this isn't always possible - a truly critical SEV1
might genuinely have zero seconds to spare." The resolution isn't a
universal guarantee that both goals can always be fully satisfied - it's
that when there IS a little time (which is often the case), the two
goals stop being in conflict.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It explains why the two warnings appear to conflict, states the
chapter's own specific resolution (a capture step inserted between
deciding to mitigate and mitigating), and acknowledges the chapter's
own honest caveat that this resolution isn't always available.