Exercise 2: The Assumption This Course Exists to Question — Possible Solution
====================================================================

THE SPECIFIC ASSUMPTION
------------------------------
Per the chapter's own comparison table, `incident1` "assumes whoever
filed the ticket is genuinely who they say they are," and `remote1`
"assumes whoever is asking for remote access is legitimately entitled
to it." Both of these are really the same underlying assumption
applied at two different points: that the identity behind a request is
what it claims to be.

WHY IT'S THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY
------------------------------
The other assumptions in the table (log entries being trustworthy,
connectivity problems being genuine, slowness reflecting a real
constraint, a 5xx being a real bug) are all about whether a *technical
symptom* is what it appears to be. Identity is different - it's not a
symptom you can independently measure the way you can check a load
average or a ping response. You largely have to take the requester's
own word for who they are, which is exactly what makes it exploitable
in a way the other assumptions aren't.

WHY IT CAN'T ALWAYS BE TRUSTED
------------------------------
A ticket, a chat message, or a phone call carries no built-in proof of
identity - anyone can write an urgent-sounding message or call sounding
convincing. Unlike a server that either is or isn't slow, "is this
person who they claim to be" has no automatic technical check behind
it unless the support process specifically builds one in - which is
exactly the gap Chapters 4 and 5 exist to close.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It identifies the specific assumption (identity matches the claim),
explains why it's fundamentally different from the other courses' own
assumptions (unverifiable vs. independently measurable), and explains
why that difference is exactly what makes it exploitable.