Sprint Pulse

Engineering Pulse — Team 2 ADS Q2 W21 - 25-29 Mai

Planned sprint ADS Q2 W21 - 25-29 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 DOCX

Executive summary

Yellow. The sprint closed 4/15 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 4/5 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 23.1% (3/13), and bugs made up 25.0% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 4/10 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.

Top-line metrics

MetricValueHow to read it
Committed completion23.1% (3/13)Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items
Committed carryover76.9% (10/13)Planned committed carryovers ÷ all planned committed items
Finish predictability10.0% (1/10)Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Progress predictability33.3% (1/3)Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying
Added-during-sprint load33.3% (5/15)Added items ÷ all visible items
Added work closure4/5All added items marked Done
Reactive load (bug share)25.0% (1/4)Completed bugs ÷ all completed work
Planning quality30.8% (4/13)Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items
Workflow-truth mismatches1Items 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 25.0% bug share and diluted committed completion.

The miss pattern is concentrated: 2 partial-completion carryovers, 3 dependency-driven misses, and 2 committed items that never really started.

Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 4 of the 10 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 %
Story0200250.0%
Task0100125.0%
Bug0100125.0%

Committed work: plan vs execution

SignalValueWhy it matters
Committed items13Explicit promise set
Committed done3Closed as promised
Committed carry over10Unfinished promise
Committed items marked Ready4Planning-quality input
Carryovers marked Ready4Ready did not guarantee finish
Carryovers not started2Execution focus gap
Carryovers started but unfinished5Work moved, but did not close

Carryover pattern

Jira itemOwnerStatusWhy it carried
ADS-1757 — Story — [Financiar] - Plati partialeEdgar AlexaCode ReviewDependency delay
ADS-6494 — Story — Log levels & Log formatsCojan Paul-CatalinTo DoNot started
ADS-6611 — Story — [Admitere v2] - Notificari la modulul admitereCojan Paul-CatalinTo DoPartial completion
ADS-7191 — Task — [BE] - Tabela subscription_organizations/subscription_users se populeaza chiar daca BE intoarce mesaj de eroare la assignPaul BostanTo DoNot started
ADS-7284 — Story — Refactorizare "Anuleaza recurenta"Edgar AlexaIn ProgressPartial completion
ADS-7405 — Story — [BE] - Local CacheAlex MurarescuIn ProgressDependency delay
ADS-7427 — Story — [Admitere v2][Taxe] - 3. Admin Vizualizare/Validare platăDragoș IvanTo Do
ADS-7519 — Task — [BE] "Afișează noutăți Adservio" toggle is non-functionalAlex MurarescuIn ProgressDependency delay
ADS-7643 — Bug — [FE/BE] - Bugs Admitere v2George MurgociTesting
ADS-7743 — Bug — [FE/BE] - Bugs Admitere v3George MurgociTo Do

Miss pattern summary

PatternCountWhat it suggests
Partial completion2Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough
Dependency delay3Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip
Not started2A committed item remained outside execution focus
In Progress / Code Review carryovers5Most 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-7320 — [Stiri] - AntivirusIn Progress

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 list1212 issues in the planning snapshot
Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list1616 issues in the Friday review snapshot
Normalized sprint fact base1515 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.