Sprint Pulse

Engineering Pulse — Team 1 ADS Q3 W32 - 10-14 Aug

Planned sprint ADS Q3 W32 - 10-14 Aug • 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 7/12 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 4/5 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 44.4% (4/9), and bugs made up 42.9% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 5/5 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.

Top-line metrics

MetricValueHow to read it
Committed completion44.4% (4/9)Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items
Committed carryover55.6% (5/9)Planned committed carryovers ÷ all planned committed items
Finish predictability44.4% (4/9)Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Progress predictability0.0% (0/0)Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying
Added-during-sprint load41.7% (5/12)Added items ÷ all visible items
Added work closure4/5All added items marked Done
Reactive load (bug share)42.9% (3/7)Completed bugs ÷ all completed work
Planning quality100.0% (9/9)Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items
Workflow-truth mismatches2Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final

Engineering readout

The sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 4/5 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 42.9% bug share and diluted committed completion.

The miss pattern is concentrated: 1 partial-completion carryovers, 0 dependency-driven misses, and 4 committed items that never really started.

Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 5 of the 5 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 %
Story1000114.3%
Task1100228.6%
Bug1200342.9%

Committed work: plan vs execution

SignalValueWhy it matters
Committed items9Explicit promise set
Committed done4Closed as promised
Committed carry over5Unfinished promise
Committed items marked Ready9Planning-quality input
Carryovers marked Ready5Ready did not guarantee finish
Carryovers not started4Execution focus gap
Carryovers started but unfinished1Work moved, but did not close

Carryover pattern

Jira itemOwnerStatusWhy it carried
ADS-2590 — Bug — [Students] - Trebuie inlocuit articolul de la model import automat-date de completare si sa se deschida articolul din manualul de utilizare daca de da click pe linkul respectivMarian AndreiTo DoNot started
ADS-8209 — Bug — [Prod][AWS][legacy-web] GET /api/v2/fisiere/view returns HTTP 500 when M_fisiere.php calls query() on nullMarian AndreiTo DoNot started
ADS-8366 — Bug — [Prod][AWS][legacy-web] Tenantless API requests hit null school DB handle across timetable, grades, and portfolioIonut CiolanTo DoNot started
ADS-8455 — Bug — [AWS prod][Teacher school years] M_cadre omits pagination total after merge - 396 errors/6hMarian AndreiTo DoNot started
ADS-8462 — Task — [Localizare] Elemente netraduse în interfața English, grupate per rolIn ProgressPartial completion

Miss pattern summary

PatternCountWhat it suggests
Partial completion1Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough
Dependency delay0Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip
Not started4A committed item remained outside execution focus
In Progress / Code Review carryovers1Most 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
ADS-7816 — [SIIIR] - Import claseIn ProgressFinish
ADS-8474 — [Documente] - Indicatori gresiti ID 5809Code Review

Executive follow-up questions

QuestionWhy this mattersWhat 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 and fact-base list links

SnapshotIssue countLink
Planning snapshot raw list1313 issues in the planning snapshot
Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list1616 issues in the Friday review snapshot
Normalized sprint fact base1212 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.

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.