Planned sprint ADS Q2 W17 27 apr 1 mai • 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 DOCXYellow. The sprint closed 28/44 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 14/17 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 59.4% (19/32), and bugs made up 60.7% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 6/13 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.
| Metric | Value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 59.4% (19/32) | Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items |
| Committed carryover | 40.6% (13/32) | Planned committed carryovers ÷ all planned committed items |
| Finish predictability | 64.3% (18/28) | Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Progress predictability | 75.0% (3/4) | Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying |
| Added-during-sprint load | 38.6% (17/44) | Added items ÷ all visible items |
| Added work closure | 14/17 | All added items marked Done |
| Reactive load (bug share) | 60.7% (17/28) | Completed bugs ÷ all completed work |
| Planning quality | 53.1% (17/32) | Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 0 | Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final |
The sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 14/17 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 60.7% bug share and diluted committed completion.
The miss pattern is concentrated: 0 partial-completion carryovers, 0 dependency-driven misses, and 0 committed items that never really started.
Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 6 of the 13 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 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 17.9% |
| Task | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 21.4% |
| Bug | 6 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 60.7% |
| Signal | Value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Committed items | 32 | Explicit promise set |
| Committed done | 19 | Closed as promised |
| Committed carry over | 13 | Unfinished promise |
| Committed items marked Ready | 17 | Planning-quality input |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 6 | Ready did not guarantee finish |
| Carryovers not started | 0 | Execution focus gap |
| Carryovers started but unfinished | 4 | Work moved, but did not close |
| Pattern | Count | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Partial completion | 0 | Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough |
| Dependency delay | 0 | Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip |
| Not started | 0 | A committed item remained outside execution focus |
| In Progress / Code Review carryovers | 4 | Most misses were moving, but not closing |
Items marked Done in the sprint-review field while Jira workflow status was still non-final.
| Jira item | Status | Intent |
|---|---|---|
| None |
| Question | Why this matters | What evidence to ask for |
|---|---|---|
| Why did committed items carry over despite planning readiness? | This tests execution quality rather than just scope quality. | Show carryovers split by progress continuation, dependency, 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 | Issue count | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Planning snapshot raw list | 28 | 28 issues in the planning snapshot |
| Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list | 41 | 41 issues in the Friday review snapshot |
| Normalized sprint fact base | 44 | 44 issues used for metrics and drill-down |
Planning and outcome are separate frozen moments.
Metric tables use the normalized sprint fact base, which keeps planning-only misses and outcome-only additions visible for traceability.
| 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.