Sprint Trends — Team University

Overview

University now has 2 source-backed checkpoint(s) in the persisted trend store.

These cards bias toward leadership questions: can we trust the promise set, what diluted it, and what actually came out of the sprint system.

Committed completion

22.7%

21.1 pts down vs prior checkpoint

Planning quality

18.2%

Improved by 5.7 pts vs prior checkpoint

Added load

75.0%

Worse by 13.1 pts vs prior checkpoint

Workflow mismatch

Improved by 3 vs prior checkpoint

Bug share

50.0%

Improved by 22.7 pts vs prior checkpoint

Product stories

1 down vs prior checkpoint

Trend explorer

Choose a consecutive week window to inspect how the delivery system changed over time for this scope.

Start week End week

Select a consecutive window to reslice the same persisted trend facts.

Delivery predictability

Committed completion, finish predictability, and planning quality should move together if the sprint system is healthy.

Committed completionFinish predictabilityPlanning quality

Percentage scale, higher is better.

Scope pressure

Carryover, added load, and bug share show how much execution was displaced by noise or late scope motion.

Committed carryoverAdded loadBug share

Percentage scale, lower is better.

Delivered mix

Stories, tasks, and bugs should stay legible enough that leaders can see where capacity actually landed.

StoriesTasksBugs

Stacked counts by checkpoint.

Miss pattern

Partial completion, dependency delay, and not-started misses help distinguish breakdown, coordination, and focus failure.

PartialDependencyNot started

Stacked miss counts by checkpoint.

Execution truth

Workflow mismatches, not-started committed items, and delivered product stories show whether the sprint closed cleanly and usefully.

Workflow mismatchNot-started committedProduct stories

Grouped counts by checkpoint.