Exercise 1: Why a High SwiftUI Re-Render Count Is a Concrete Signal of Over-Broad State — Possible Solution
=============================================================================================================

The SwiftUI Instrument reports, as a real, measured number, exactly how
many times a given view's own body property was actually re-evaluated
during a profiling run - not a guess, not an inference from reading the
source code, but a genuine, observed count taken from the running app
itself.

Fundamentals Chapter 6 already explained the underlying mechanism:
@Observable tracks which properties a view's own body actually reads,
and only re-renders that view when one of those specific properties
changes. If TaskRow is written correctly - reading only task.title and
task.isDone, say - then editing an unrelated task elsewhere in the list
should never cause that TaskRow to re-render at all, since none of the
properties it actually reads have changed.

If the SwiftUI Instrument instead shows TaskRow re-rendering every
single time ANY task in the list changes, that is real, concrete
evidence the view is reading something broader than it needs to - for
example, observing the entire array of tasks directly rather than just
its own single task, or being handed a reference to a whole
@Observable view model instead of just the one task it displays. The
instrument turns "I suspect this view is over-observing" from a
theoretical worry into a specific, measured, undeniable number.

ANSWER: A high SwiftUI Instrument re-render count for TaskRow that
doesn't match how often that specific row's own data actually changes
is real, measured evidence - not a guess - that the view is observing
more state than it genuinely needs to display just its own row,
directly confirming the over-broad-scoping risk Fundamentals Chapter 6
described only in the abstract.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This connects the instrument's own real measurement to the specific
@Observable tracking mechanism from an earlier chapter, explaining WHY
an unexpectedly high count is meaningful evidence rather than just
restating that the instrument counts re-renders.