Aggregated sprint ADS Q2 W25 - 22-26 Jun • deduplicated roll-up across included teams
This org roll-up aggregates deduplicated frozen issue facts across 4 team snapshots. Count metrics link to snapshot-exact JQL result pages. Jira IDs in the report link to live Jira issues.
Download DOCXYellow. The sprint closed 48/112 visible items. The org roll-up absorbed noise reasonably well — 14/27 added items were closed — but finish predictability was only 43.2% (32/74), and bugs made up 56.2% of completed items. Planning-baseline carryover includes 42 finish misses and 6 expected progress continuations.
| Metric | Value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 40.0% (34/85) | Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items |
| Planning-baseline carryover | 60.0% (51/85) | All planned items not Done, including expected Progress continuations |
| Finish-intent carryover | 56.8% (42/74) | Finish-intent planned items not Done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Finish predictability | 43.2% (32/74) | Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Progress predictability | 75.0% (6/8) | Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying |
| Added-during-sprint load | 24.1% (27/112) | Outcome-only items ÷ all visible items |
| Added work closure | 14/27 | All added items marked Done |
| Reactive load (bug share) | 56.2% (27/48) | Completed bugs ÷ all completed work |
| Planning quality | 22.4% (19/85) | Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 4 | Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final |
Across included teams, the sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 14/27 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 56.2% bug share and diluted finish predictability.
The miss pattern is concentrated: 15 partial-completion carryovers, 2 dependency-driven misses, and 21 planning-baseline items that never really started.
Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 13 of the 51 planning-baseline carryovers had been marked Ready, so the stronger hypothesis is breakdown, sequencing, and capacity protection rather than simple scoping immaturity.
| Type | Planned | Added | Stretch | Unclear | Total done | Done % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Story | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 16.7% |
| Task | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 18.8% |
| Bug | 18 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 56.2% |
| Signal | Value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Planning-baseline items | 85 | Items present in the frozen planning snapshot |
| Planning-baseline done | 34 | Closed by sprint review |
| Planning-baseline carryover | 51 | All planned items still open, including Progress continuation |
| Finish-intent carryover | 42 | Planned-to-finish items that did not finish |
| Progress continuation | 6 | Progress-intent planned items still open as expected |
| Planning-baseline items marked Ready | 19 | Planning-quality input |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 13 | Ready did not guarantee closure |
| Carryovers not started | 21 | Execution focus gap |
| Carryovers started but unfinished | 17 | Work moved, but did not close |
| Pattern | Count | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Partial completion | 15 | Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough |
| Dependency delay | 2 | Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip |
| Not started | 21 | A committed item remained outside execution focus |
| In Progress / Code Review carryovers | 17 | Most misses were moving, but not closing |
Items marked Done in the sprint-review field while Jira workflow status was still non-final.
| Question | Why this matters | What 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. |
Included teams in this org pulse: Mobile, Team 1, Team 2, University.
Usage note: start with the top-line metrics, then use the traceability links to answer these questions with issue-level evidence.
| Snapshot / movement | Issue count | Calculation | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning snapshot raw list | 88 | Frozen planning export before metric exclusions | Open JQL |
| Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list | 116 | Frozen review export before metric exclusions | Open JQL |
| Normalized sprint fact base | 112 | Deduplicated union used by metrics after canceled/cancelled exclusions | Open JQL |
| Metric planning baseline | 85 | Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen planning snapshot | Open JQL |
| Metric outcome snapshot | 112 | Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen sprint-review snapshot | Open JQL |
| Planned and still present at review | 85 | planning_snapshot_present = true and outcome_snapshot_present = true | Open JQL |
| Added after planning | 27 | planning_snapshot_present = false and outcome_snapshot_present = true | Open JQL |
| Planned but missing from review | 0 | planning_snapshot_present = true and outcome_snapshot_present = false | Open JQL |
| Metric-excluded canceled/cancelled rows | 4 | Rows preserved in audit but excluded from every numerator and denominator | Open 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 | Value | Formula | Numerator / denominator | Denominator evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 40.0% (34/85) | planned committed items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items | 34/85 | Open denominator JQL |
| Planning-baseline carryover | 60.0% (51/85) | planned baseline items not Done at review ÷ all planned baseline items | 51/85 | Open denominator JQL |
| Finish-intent carryover | 56.8% (42/74) | finish-intent planned items not Done at review ÷ all finish-intent planned items | 42/74 | Open denominator JQL |
| Finish predictability | 43.2% (32/74) | finish-intent committed items marked Done ÷ all finish-intent committed items | 32/74 | Open denominator JQL |
| Progress predictability | 75.0% (6/8) | progress-intent items that carried as intended ÷ all progress-intent committed items | 6/8 | Open denominator JQL |
| Added-during-sprint load | 24.1% (27/112) | visible items absent from planning and present in review ÷ all visible sprint items | 27/112 | Open denominator JQL |
| Added work closure | 14/27 | added visible items marked Done ÷ all added visible items | 14/27 | Open denominator JQL |
| Planning quality | 22.4% (19/85) | committed items marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all committed items | 19/85 | Open denominator JQL |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 25.5% (13/51) | carryovers that were marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all carryovers | 13/51 | Open denominator JQL |
| Reactive load | 56.2% (27/48) | completed bugs ÷ all completed work | 27/48 | Open denominator JQL |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 4 | Done rows with non-final workflow status | 4/48 | Open 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.
| Artifact | Link |
|---|---|
| Issue audit register | Open issue-level audit CSV |
| Metric lineage | Open metric lineage CSV |
| JQL traceability register | Open JQL traceability CSV |
| Sprint metrics JSON | Open sprint metrics JSON |
These companion artifacts keep the pulse debuggable when a leader wants the exact rows behind a metric or a count.