Planned sprint ADS Q2 W26 - 29 Jun-03 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 DOCXYellow. The sprint closed 27/43 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 22/34 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 61.1% (22/36), and bugs made up 55.6% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 4/14 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.
| Metric | Value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 61.1% (22/36) | Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items |
| Committed carryover | 38.9% (14/36) | Planned committed carryovers ÷ all planned committed items |
| Finish predictability | 63.0% (17/27) | Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Progress predictability | 44.4% (4/9) | Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying |
| Added-during-sprint load | 79.1% (34/43) | Added items ÷ all visible items |
| Added work closure | 22/34 | All added items marked Done |
| Reactive load (bug share) | 55.6% (15/27) | Completed bugs ÷ all completed work |
| Planning quality | 33.3% (12/36) | Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 7 | Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final |
The sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 22/34 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 55.6% bug share and diluted committed completion.
The miss pattern is concentrated: 1 partial-completion carryovers, 1 dependency-driven misses, and 10 committed items that never really started.
Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 4 of the 14 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 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 11.1% |
| Task | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 14.8% |
| Bug | 0 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 55.6% |
| Signal | Value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Committed items | 36 | Explicit promise set |
| Committed done | 22 | Closed as promised |
| Committed carry over | 14 | Unfinished promise |
| Committed items marked Ready | 12 | Planning-quality input |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 4 | Ready did not guarantee finish |
| Carryovers not started | 10 | Execution focus gap |
| Carryovers started but unfinished | 2 | Work moved, but did not close |
| Pattern | Count | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Partial completion | 1 | Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough |
| Dependency delay | 1 | Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip |
| Not started | 10 | A committed item remained outside execution focus |
| In Progress / Code Review carryovers | 2 | 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 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 | 40 | 40 issues in the planning snapshot |
| Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list | 52 | 52 issues in the Friday review snapshot |
| Normalized sprint fact base | 43 | 43 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.