Exercise 1: Why Log-First Is Actually Faster — Possible Solution
====================================================================

WHAT MAKES GUESSING SLOW, EVEN THOUGH IT FEELS FAST TO START
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "a plausible-sounding theory... sends you off to check
database metrics, find nothing obviously wrong, move on to the next
guess, and repeat." Each wrong guess costs real time and, critically,
"produces no evidence toward the actual answer" - so a guess that
turns out wrong isn't just a dead end, it's time spent with nothing
gained toward actually solving the ticket.

WHAT MAKES LOG-FIRST FASTER OVERALL, DESPITE THE SLOWER START
------------------------------
Per this chapter, "every minute spent reading logs is a minute spent
on real evidence, not a guess that might be completely wrong." Reading
logs takes real time up front, but that time narrows down which
theories are even worth considering - so by the time you do act, you're
acting on something evidence-based rather than a hunch that has a real
chance of being wrong and needing to be redone.

THE REAL COMPARISON
------------------------------
Per this chapter, the comparison isn't "reading logs is instant" vs.
"guessing is slow" - it's "guessing can waste many wrong attempts in a
row" vs. "log-reading takes one up-front investment that then points
you at the right answer directly." The total time to actually close
the ticket correctly is what's being compared, not the time to take
the very first action.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It correctly identifies that guessing's real cost is wasted, evidence-
free attempts rather than the guess itself being slow, and correctly
explains that log-reading's up-front time investment is what prevents
that repeated waste - addressing the "even though reading logs takes
real time up front" part of the question directly rather than ignoring it.