Exercise 2: Why a High-Fidelity Prototype Would Be Wasteful Here — Possible Solution
====================================================================

The team still hasn't settled on which of two genuinely different
navigation structures to use - the real, open question at this stage
is structural ("is this the right flow at all?"), not visual or
interaction-detail related. This chapter's own rule of thumb says
exactly that kind of question calls for low fidelity, since the
structure itself is still likely to change significantly based on
whatever the team learns next.

Building a high-fidelity, pixel-perfect prototype means investing real
time in visual design, spacing, typography, and interaction polish -
none of which actually helps answer the real question still on the
table. If the team then learns the navigation structure itself needs
to change (which is a real, live possibility here), all of that
polish-level effort has to be redone or thrown away along with the
structural change, since it was built on top of a structure that
turned out to be wrong. A low-fidelity version could have tested the
same structural question far more cheaply.

ANSWER: This would be a real, avoidable waste of effort because the
open question at this stage - which navigation structure is right -
is structural, not visual, and this chapter's own guidance is to use
low fidelity while that kind of question is still unresolved. Building
high-fidelity polish now means redoing or discarding that work if the
structure itself changes, which a cheaper, low-fidelity version would
have avoided.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This correctly applies the chapter's own fidelity rule of thumb -
matching fidelity level to what kind of question is still open - to a
concrete project-stage scenario, rather than treating high fidelity as
simply "more effort than needed" without explaining why that effort
is specifically wasted here.