Exercise 1: Removing the System Rules — Possible Solution
====================================================================

The most likely real consequence is a higher rate of generated specs
referencing component types or structures that don't actually match
the catalog and registry from Chapter 2 - a spec that uses a
different root element than "card," or that never uses "badge" for a
status value even where the app's own convention expects it. Without
the system rules steering it, the model is only working from the raw
prompt, with no explicit reminder of the app's own real conventions.

This connects directly to Chapter 2's own catalog/registry material:
even if the model happens to only reference types that genuinely exist
in the catalog, removing the rules means losing the extra layer that
was actively reducing how often a generated spec strayed from the
app's own expected shape (root type, which type is used for which
purpose) in the first place. The catalog and registry still provide a
hard technical constraint on what CAN render, but the system rules
were the softer, additional layer keeping generated specs consistent
with how the app is actually meant to look and behave.

ANSWER: The most likely consequence is a higher rate of specs that
technically use valid catalog types but don't follow the app's own
real conventions (e.g. a root that isn't "card," or a status value not
shown as a badge) - the rules were the layer steering the model toward
consistency, on top of the catalog/registry's own harder constraint on
which types can render at all.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This correctly distinguishes what the system rules add (consistency
with app conventions) from what the catalog/registry already
guarantees (which types can render at all), rather than treating the
rules' removal as breaking rendering entirely.