Exercise 1: Resolving the Deep-Insight vs. Fifty-Participant Tension — Possible Solution
====================================================================

Moderated testing is genuinely better suited to deep, real-time
follow-up on why participants hesitate, since a facilitator can ask a
direct question the moment hesitation happens. But moderated sessions
are slow and resource-intensive, since each one needs a live
facilitator guiding it - running 50 of them within one week is a real,
practical strain on time and staffing that unmoderated testing doesn't
have, since unmoderated sessions can run in parallel with no live
facilitator required at all.

A real, practical resolution is to combine both rather than picking
just one. The team could run a smaller number of moderated sessions
(reusing Chapter 2's own real finding that even 5 well-chosen
participants surface a large share of usability problems) specifically
to get the deep, real-time "why" behind hesitation at that step, and
separately run a larger unmoderated round with the remaining
participants to measure how common that same hesitation actually is
at scale - using each method for what it's genuinely good at rather
than forcing one method to do both jobs.

ANSWER: The tension exists because moderated testing gives real-time
depth but doesn't scale to 50 participants in a week, while
unmoderated testing scales easily but can't ask a real-time follow-up.
The team can resolve this by combining both - a small moderated round
for deep insight into the "why," and a larger unmoderated round to
measure how common the issue is - rather than relying on one method
alone to answer both kinds of question.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This correctly identifies the real, specific tradeoff each method
carries and proposes a concrete way to combine them, rather than
simply picking one method and ignoring what the other one is
genuinely better at.