Sprint Pulse

Engineering Pulse — Mobile ADS Q2 W20 - 18-22 May

Planned sprint ADS Q2 W20 - 18-22 May • planning snapshot + end-of-sprint outcome snapshot

This version uses the planning snapshot as the promise set and the outcome snapshot as the result set. Count metrics link to snapshot-exact JQL result pages. Jira IDs in the report link to live Jira issues.

Download DOCX

Executive summary

Yellow. The sprint closed 0/7 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 0/5 added items were closed — but finish predictability was only 0.0% (0/1), and bugs made up 0.0% of completed items. Planning-baseline carryover includes 1 finish misses and 1 expected progress continuations.

Top-line metrics

MetricValueHow to read it
Committed completion0.0% (0/2)Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items
Planning-baseline carryover100.0% (2/2)All planned items not Done, including expected Progress continuations
Finish-intent carryover100.0% (1/1)Finish-intent planned items not Done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Finish predictability0.0% (0/1)Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Progress predictability100.0% (1/1)Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying
Added-during-sprint load71.4% (5/7)Outcome-only items ÷ all visible items
Added work closure0/5All added items marked Done
Reactive load (bug share)0.0% (0/0)Completed bugs ÷ all completed work
Planning quality50.0% (1/2)Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items
Workflow-truth mismatches0Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final

Engineering readout

The sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 0/5 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 0.0% bug share and diluted finish predictability.

The miss pattern is concentrated: 1 partial-completion carryovers, 0 dependency-driven misses, and 1 planning-baseline items that never really started.

Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 1 of the 2 planning-baseline carryovers had been marked Ready, so the stronger hypothesis is breakdown, sequencing, and capacity protection rather than simple scoping immaturity.

Delivered work mix

TypePlannedAddedStretchUnclearTotal doneDone %
Story000000.0%
Task000000.0%
Bug000000.0%

Planning baseline: plan vs execution

SignalValueWhy it matters
Planning-baseline items2Items present in the frozen planning snapshot
Planning-baseline done0Closed by sprint review
Planning-baseline carryover2All planned items still open, including Progress continuation
Finish-intent carryover1Planned-to-finish items that did not finish
Progress continuation1Progress-intent planned items still open as expected
Planning-baseline items marked Ready1Planning-quality input
Carryovers marked Ready1Ready did not guarantee closure
Carryovers not started1Execution focus gap
Carryovers started but unfinished1Work moved, but did not close

Carryover pattern

Jira itemOwnerIntentStatusWhy it carried
ADS-4357 — Bug — [Mob][Classes] - Din aplicatia de mobil nu se poate sterge nota la materia religie/ ed fizica unui elev scutitStefan AgrigoroaeiFinishDoneNot started
ADS-6928 — Story — [MOB] - Action buttonstefan musatProgressIn ProgressPartial completion

Miss pattern summary

PatternCountWhat it suggests
Partial completion1Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough
Dependency delay0Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip
Not started1A committed item remained outside execution focus
In Progress / Code Review carryovers1Most misses were moving, but not closing

Workflow-truth mismatches

Items marked Done in the sprint-review field while Jira workflow status was still non-final.

Jira itemStatusIntent
None

Executive follow-up questions

QuestionWhy this mattersWhat evidence to ask for
Why did finish-intent items carry over despite planning readiness?This tests execution quality rather than just scope quality.Show finish-intent carryovers split by dependency, partial completion, and not-started.
Are Progress items being managed intentionally?Progress items are allowed to continue, but the continuation should be visible and controlled.Show the original slice and the specific landing expectation for each item.
Is added work a healthy responsiveness level or chronic interruption?High responsiveness can hide systemic instability and diluted predictability.Show which added items were urgent/reactive versus discretionary scope change.
Can we trust Done in review when workflow is still non-final?Workflow-truth gaps reduce trust and make completion easy to game.Show the exact mismatches and the completion rule to enforce next sprint.

Usage note: start with the top-line metrics, then use the traceability links to answer these questions with issue-level evidence.

Snapshot and fact-base list links

Snapshot / movementIssue countCalculationLink
Planning snapshot raw list2Frozen planning export before metric exclusionsOpen JQL
Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list7Frozen review export before metric exclusionsOpen JQL
Normalized sprint fact base7Deduplicated union used by metrics after canceled/cancelled exclusionsOpen JQL
Metric planning baseline2Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen planning snapshotOpen JQL
Metric outcome snapshot7Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen sprint-review snapshotOpen JQL
Planned and still present at review2planning_snapshot_present = true and outcome_snapshot_present = trueOpen JQL
Added after planning5planning_snapshot_present = false and outcome_snapshot_present = trueOpen JQL
Planned but missing from review0planning_snapshot_present = true and outcome_snapshot_present = falseOpen JQL
Metric-excluded canceled/cancelled rows0Rows preserved in audit but excluded from every numerator and denominatorOpen JQL

Planning and outcome are separate frozen moments. Raw snapshot counts can be larger than metric counts because canceled/cancelled rows stay in audit but leave all metric denominators.

Added after planning is snapshot-based: present in the outcome snapshot and absent from the planning snapshot. Planned but missing from review shows items that left the sprint snapshot before review.

Metric register addendum

MetricValueFormulaNumerator / denominatorDenominator evidence
Committed completion0.0% (0/2)planned committed items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items0/2Open denominator JQL
Planning-baseline carryover100.0% (2/2)planned baseline items not Done at review ÷ all planned baseline items2/2Open denominator JQL
Finish-intent carryover100.0% (1/1)finish-intent planned items not Done at review ÷ all finish-intent planned items1/1Open denominator JQL
Finish predictability0.0% (0/1)finish-intent committed items marked Done ÷ all finish-intent committed items0/1Open denominator JQL
Progress predictability100.0% (1/1)progress-intent items that carried as intended ÷ all progress-intent committed items1/1Open denominator JQL
Added-during-sprint load71.4% (5/7)visible items absent from planning and present in review ÷ all visible sprint items5/7Open denominator JQL
Added work closure0/5added visible items marked Done ÷ all added visible items0/5Open denominator JQL
Planning quality50.0% (1/2)committed items marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all committed items1/2Open denominator JQL
Carryovers marked Ready50.0% (1/2)carryovers that were marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all carryovers1/2Open denominator JQL
Reactive load0.0% (0/0)completed bugs ÷ all completed work0/0Open denominator JQL
Workflow-truth mismatches0Done rows with non-final workflow status0/0Open denominator JQL

Planning-baseline carryover includes both finish-intent misses and expected Progress continuations. Use Finish-intent carryover when you want only planned-to-finish items that did not finish.

Evidence artifacts

ArtifactLink
Issue audit registerOpen issue-level audit CSV
Metric lineageOpen metric lineage CSV
JQL traceability registerOpen JQL traceability CSV
Sprint metrics JSONOpen sprint metrics JSON

These companion artifacts keep the pulse debuggable when a leader wants the exact rows behind a metric or a count.