Planned sprint ADS Q3 W29 - 20-24 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 10/22 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 1/5 added items were closed — but finish predictability was only 64.3% (9/14), and bugs made up 50.0% of completed items. Planning-baseline carryover includes 5 finish misses and 3 expected progress continuations.
| Metric | Value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 52.9% (9/17) | Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items |
| Planning-baseline carryover | 47.1% (8/17) | All planned items not Done, including expected Progress continuations |
| Finish-intent carryover | 35.7% (5/14) | Finish-intent planned items not Done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Finish predictability | 64.3% (9/14) | Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Progress predictability | 100.0% (3/3) | Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying |
| Added-during-sprint load | 22.7% (5/22) | Outcome-only items ÷ all visible items |
| Added work closure | 1/5 | All added items marked Done |
| Reactive load (bug share) | 50.0% (5/10) | Completed bugs ÷ all completed work |
| Planning quality | 47.1% (8/17) | 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. 1/5 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 50.0% bug share and diluted finish predictability.
The miss pattern is concentrated: 4 partial-completion carryovers, 0 dependency-driven misses, and 2 planning-baseline items that never really started.
Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 1 of the 8 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 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 20.0% |
| Task | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 10.0% |
| Bug | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 50.0% |
| Signal | Value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Planning-baseline items | 17 | Items present in the frozen planning snapshot |
| Planning-baseline done | 9 | Closed by sprint review |
| Planning-baseline carryover | 8 | All planned items still open, including Progress continuation |
| Finish-intent carryover | 5 | Planned-to-finish items that did not finish |
| Progress continuation | 3 | Progress-intent planned items still open as expected |
| Planning-baseline items marked Ready | 8 | Planning-quality input |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 1 | Ready did not guarantee closure |
| Carryovers not started | 2 | Execution focus gap |
| Carryovers started but unfinished | 5 | Work moved, but did not close |
| Pattern | Count | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Partial completion | 4 | Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough |
| Dependency delay | 0 | Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip |
| Not started | 2 | A committed item remained outside execution focus |
| In Progress / Code Review carryovers | 5 | 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 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 / movement | Issue count | Calculation | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| Planning snapshot raw list | 17 | Frozen planning export before metric exclusions | Open JQL |
| Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list | 22 | Frozen review export before metric exclusions | Open JQL |
| Normalized sprint fact base | 22 | Deduplicated union used by metrics after canceled/cancelled exclusions | Open JQL |
| Metric planning baseline | 17 | Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen planning snapshot | Open JQL |
| Metric outcome snapshot | 22 | Non-canceled issue keys present in the frozen sprint-review snapshot | Open JQL |
| Planned and still present at review | 17 | planning_snapshot_present = true and outcome_snapshot_present = true | Open JQL |
| Added after planning | 5 | 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 | 0 | 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 | 52.9% (9/17) | planned committed items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items | 9/17 | Open denominator JQL |
| Planning-baseline carryover | 47.1% (8/17) | planned baseline items not Done at review ÷ all planned baseline items | 8/17 | Open denominator JQL |
| Finish-intent carryover | 35.7% (5/14) | finish-intent planned items not Done at review ÷ all finish-intent planned items | 5/14 | Open denominator JQL |
| Finish predictability | 64.3% (9/14) | finish-intent committed items marked Done ÷ all finish-intent committed items | 9/14 | Open denominator JQL |
| Progress predictability | 100.0% (3/3) | progress-intent items that carried as intended ÷ all progress-intent committed items | 3/3 | Open denominator JQL |
| Added-during-sprint load | 22.7% (5/22) | visible items absent from planning and present in review ÷ all visible sprint items | 5/22 | Open denominator JQL |
| Added work closure | 1/5 | added visible items marked Done ÷ all added visible items | 1/5 | Open denominator JQL |
| Planning quality | 47.1% (8/17) | committed items marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all committed items | 8/17 | Open denominator JQL |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 12.5% (1/8) | carryovers that were marked Ready in planning snapshot ÷ all carryovers | 1/8 | Open denominator JQL |
| Reactive load | 50.0% (5/10) | completed bugs ÷ all completed work | 5/10 | Open denominator JQL |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 0 | Done rows with non-final workflow status | 0/10 | 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.