Sprint Pulse

Engineering Pulse — Team 2 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 4/14 visible items. The team absorbed noise well — 1/2 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 25.0% (3/12), and bugs made up 25.0% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 4/9 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.

Top-line metrics

MetricValueHow to read it
Committed completion25.0% (3/12)Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items
Committed carryover75.0% (9/12)Planned committed carryovers ÷ all planned committed items
Finish predictability37.5% (3/8)Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items
Progress predictability100.0% (4/4)Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying
Added-during-sprint load14.3% (2/14)Added items ÷ all visible items
Added work closure1/2All added items marked Done
Reactive load (bug share)25.0% (1/4)Completed bugs ÷ all completed work
Planning quality41.7% (5/12)Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items
Workflow-truth mismatches0Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final

Engineering readout

The sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 1/2 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 25.0% bug share and diluted committed completion.

The miss pattern is concentrated: 8 partial-completion carryovers, 0 dependency-driven misses, and 1 committed items that never really started.

Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 4 of the 9 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 %
Story2000250.0%
Task0100125.0%
Bug1000125.0%

Committed work: plan vs execution

SignalValueWhy it matters
Committed items12Explicit promise set
Committed done3Closed as promised
Committed carry over9Unfinished promise
Committed items marked Ready5Planning-quality input
Carryovers marked Ready4Ready did not guarantee finish
Carryovers not started1Execution focus gap
Carryovers started but unfinished7Work moved, but did not close

Carryover pattern

Jira itemOwnerStatusWhy it carried
ADS-5654 — Story — [UPA,UPG, Asachi] Taxe școlarizareGeorge MurgociIn ProgressPartial completion
ADS-6159 — Story — Notification Center for MobileDragoș IvanIn ProgressPartial completion
ADS-7251 — Story — Mutarea subscriptii de pe recurenta An scolar pe recurenta an calendaristicEdgar AlexaIn ProgressPartial completion
ADS-8255 — Bug — [BE][Admission] - Problema la aplicare status pregatit pe un candidat admitereGeorge MurgociIn ProgressPartial completion
ADS-8339 — Story — ToolsAlex MurarescuCode ReviewPartial completion
ADS-8383 — Story — [BE] - Local Cache BillingGeorge MurgociIn ProgressPartial completion
ADS-8428 — Task — Mng Penalitatilor BugsGeorge MurgociReady for testingPartial completion
ADS-8482 — Task — [BE] Replace audit interceptor for the AI projectAlex MurarescuTo DoNot started
ADS-8497 — Task — [BE] Integrate the AI service with the MCP serverAlex MurarescuIn ProgressPartial completion

Miss pattern summary

PatternCountWhat it suggests
Partial completion8Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough
Dependency delay0Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip
Not started1A committed item remained outside execution focus
In Progress / Code Review carryovers7Most 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
None

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 list1010 issues in the planning snapshot
Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list1414 issues in the Friday review snapshot
Normalized sprint fact base1414 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.