Exercise 1: Why Skipping the Low-Fidelity Wireframe Is a Real Risk — Possible Solution
====================================================================

Step 8 used a low-fidelity wireframe first specifically because the
real, open question at that stage was structural - did the overall
flow and layout make sense at all - and that kind of question is
genuinely cheap to test and change at low fidelity. Jumping straight to
a high-fidelity prototype means investing real time in visual polish
before that structural question has even been answered.

Step 9's own real finding makes the risk of skipping ahead concrete:
2 of 5 participants missed the custom date option entirely in testing,
a real usability problem that needed a genuine visual fix (a calendar
icon) and a full retest to confirm. Nothing about that fix depended on
the prototype already being high-fidelity - it could just as easily
have been discovered, and fixed far more cheaply, at the low-fidelity
stage before any real visual polish was invested. Skipping straight to
high fidelity risks discovering the same structural or interaction
problem later, after significantly more effort has already gone into
visual details that may now need to be redone.

ANSWER: This is a risky shortcut because the low-fidelity stage exists
specifically to test structural and interaction questions cheaply,
before real visual effort is invested. Step 9's own missed-option
problem shows this kind of issue can surface regardless of fidelity
level - discovering it at high fidelity, after real time has already
gone into polish, would mean more wasted effort than catching the same
problem early and cheaply.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This connects the capstone's own Step 8 fidelity rationale directly to
Step 9's own real test finding, showing concretely why skipping ahead
would have made the same real problem more expensive to fix, rather
than arguing only in the abstract.