Exercise 2: Why the Retest Was Genuinely Worth Running — Possible Solution
====================================================================

Knowing what the fix should be is not the same as knowing that the
fix actually worked - and this capstone's own real numbers show
exactly why that distinction matters. Before the redesign, completion
rate was 60% (3 of 5 participants succeeded, 2 missed the custom date
option). The team's confidence that adding a calendar icon would solve
this was reasonable, but it was still an assumption until it was
actually tested again.

The retest is what turned that assumption into real evidence: a second
round of 5 participants found completion rate had risen to 100% - the
fix genuinely worked, not just plausibly worked. Without the retest,
the team would have shipped believing the fix was effective, with no
real confirmation - and if the fix had actually only partially solved
the problem, or introduced a new one, that would have gone undetected
until real users encountered it in production, a far more costly place
to discover it than a second small test round.

ANSWER: The retest was worth running because it turned the team's
reasonable assumption into real evidence - completion rate genuinely
rose from 60% to 100%, confirming the fix worked rather than merely
seeming likely to work. Skipping it would mean shipping based on
confidence alone, with no real confirmation the redesign actually
solved the original problem.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This uses the capstone's own specific real completion-rate numbers to
show the concrete value the retest provided, rather than arguing only
that "testing is generally good practice."