Sprint Pulse

Engineering Pulse — Mobile ADS Q3 W27 - 06-10 Jul

Planned sprint ADS Q3 W27 - 06-10 Jul • 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 8/14 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 0/3 added items were closed — but finish predictability was only 77.8% (7/9), and bugs made up 12.5% of completed items. Planning-baseline carryover includes 2 finish misses and 0 expected progress continuations.

Top-line metrics

MetricValueHow to read it
Committed completion72.7% (8/11)Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items
Planning-baseline carryover27.3% (3/11)All planned items not Done, including expected Progress continuations
Finish-intent carryover22.2% (2/9)Finish-intent planned items not Done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Finish predictability77.8% (7/9)Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Progress predictability0.0% (0/1)Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying
Added-during-sprint load21.4% (3/14)Outcome-only items ÷ all visible items
Added work closure0/3All added items marked Done
Reactive load (bug share)12.5% (1/8)Completed bugs ÷ all completed work
Planning quality54.5% (6/11)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. 0/3 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 12.5% bug share and diluted finish predictability.

The miss pattern is concentrated: 0 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 3 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 %
Story5000562.5%
Task1000112.5%
Bug1000112.5%

Planning baseline: plan vs execution

SignalValueWhy it matters
Planning-baseline items11Items present in the frozen planning snapshot
Planning-baseline done8Closed by sprint review
Planning-baseline carryover3All planned items still open, including Progress continuation
Finish-intent carryover2Planned-to-finish items that did not finish
Progress continuation0Progress-intent planned items still open as expected
Planning-baseline items marked Ready6Planning-quality input
Carryovers marked Ready1Ready did not guarantee closure
Carryovers not started1Execution focus gap
Carryovers started but unfinished0Work moved, but did not close

Carryover pattern

Jira itemOwnerIntentStatusWhy it carried
ADS-5808 — Bug — [MOB][Wellbeing] - Parintele nu poate vizualiza testele de autocunoastere pe mobAntoci RazvanFinishTo DoNot started
ADS-7831 — Story — [Spike] - Mobile app cold startstefan musatStretch / OptionalTo Do
ADS-8068 — Story — [MOB] - Încheiere situatieStefan AgrigoroaeiFinishTo Do

Miss pattern summary

PatternCountWhat it suggests
Partial completion0Breakdown / 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 carryovers0Most 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 list11Frozen planning export before metric exclusionsOpen JQL
Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list14Frozen review export before metric exclusionsOpen JQL
Normalized sprint fact base14Deduplicated union used by metrics after canceled/cancelled exclusionsOpen JQL
Metric planning baseline11Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen planning snapshotOpen JQL
Metric outcome snapshot14Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen sprint-review snapshotOpen JQL
Planned and still present at review11planning_snapshot_present = true and outcome_snapshot_present = trueOpen JQL
Added after planning3planning_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 completion72.7% (8/11)planned committed items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items8/11Open denominator JQL
Planning-baseline carryover27.3% (3/11)planned baseline items not Done at review ÷ all planned baseline items3/11Open denominator JQL
Finish-intent carryover22.2% (2/9)finish-intent planned items not Done at review ÷ all finish-intent planned items2/9Open denominator JQL
Finish predictability77.8% (7/9)finish-intent committed items marked Done ÷ all finish-intent committed items7/9Open denominator JQL
Progress predictability0.0% (0/1)progress-intent items that carried as intended ÷ all progress-intent committed items0/1Open denominator JQL
Added-during-sprint load21.4% (3/14)visible items absent from planning and present in review ÷ all visible sprint items3/14Open denominator JQL
Added work closure0/3added visible items marked Done ÷ all added visible items0/3Open denominator JQL
Planning quality54.5% (6/11)committed items marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all committed items6/11Open denominator JQL
Carryovers marked Ready33.3% (1/3)carryovers that were marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all carryovers1/3Open denominator JQL
Reactive load12.5% (1/8)completed bugs ÷ all completed work1/8Open denominator JQL
Workflow-truth mismatches0Done rows with non-final workflow status0/8Open 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.