◇ Could this help me?
Yes, applied per artifact. The observation is correct and easy to confirm: a long plain-text output is skimmed and abandoned, while the same content laid out with navigation, comparison, and copyable sections actually gets used, and the only change required is asking for a different output format. The three examples given, inline differences, side-by-side comparison, and per-section copy buttons, are all things plain text genuinely cannot do. General practice, with the qualification the video skips: markdown is the better format whenever something is going into version control, being diffed, or being read by another tool, so this is a decision about what the artifact is for rather than a format to switch to everywhere.
From now on, ask me which of two output formats a deliverable needs before you produce it, and recommend one. If it is something a person will read, review, compare, or share, produce a designed web page: navigable, scannable, with comparisons laid out side by side and copy buttons on anything I would want to lift out. If it is going into version control, being diffed, or being read by another tool, keep it as plain markdown. For the task I give you below, tell me which it is and why, then produce it in that form. Do not use the heavier format by default, since it costs more and is wasted on anything I will not open twice.