Exercise 3: How the Chapter Actually Handled the "2024 Rule Change" Claim — Possible Solution
====================================================================

The chapter's own real research treated this exact claim as something
to verify rather than assume was true, and the verification came back
negative - the real rule that newly-subscribed money can only go into
one ISA of each type per tax year has not changed, and remains in
effect. The claim the friend is repeating does not reflect the real,
current rule.

This matters as a genuine example of the chapter's own broader real
point about ISA rules: it's explicitly worth double-checking any
specific claim against current official guidance (gov.uk) rather than
assuming a rule from a previous year - or a plausible-sounding claim
someone else repeats - still holds. In this specific case, checking
against a real source revealed the claim was inaccurate, exactly the
kind of situation the chapter's own warning was written to guard
against.

ANSWER: The chapter's own research checked this specific claim against
real, current information rather than assuming it was accurate, and
found it to be false - the one-ISA-of-each-type-per-tax-year rule
remains unchanged. This is a direct, real example of the chapter's own
broader point: specific claims about ISA rules are worth verifying
against current official guidance rather than trusting a
plausible-sounding claim at face value.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
This correctly explains that the chapter verified rather than assumed
the claim, and connects the outcome (the claim being false) back to
the chapter's own explicit warning about checking current guidance,
rather than simply restating that the friend is wrong.