A neighborhood group compared two tree-planting plans for a busy street. One plan placed young trees wherever empty soil was available, while the other measured afternoon shade, pedestrian routes, and underground pipes before choosing each location. At first, the faster plan seemed more successful because it planted more trees. By midsummer, however, several of those trees blocked signs or required extra watering, and two had to be moved. The measured plan planted fewer trees, but most of them shaded the places where people actually waited. The group therefore changed its definition of success. It no longer counted only how many trees had been planted; it also examined whether each tree survived, reduced heat where needed, and avoided creating a new obstacle. The comparison shows why a quick total can be misleading. A result should be checked against several conditions, and finding one satisfied condition should not end the review of the others.