Aggregated sprint ADS Q3 W28 - 13-17 Jul • deduplicated roll-up across included teams
This org roll-up aggregates deduplicated frozen issue facts across 4 team snapshots. Count metrics link to snapshot-exact JQL result pages. Jira IDs in the report link to live Jira issues.
Download DOCXYellow. The sprint closed 24/61 visible items. The org roll-up absorbed noise reasonably well — 11/32 added items were closed — but predictability on committed work was only 35.8% (19/53), and bugs made up 33.3% of completed items. The main drag was execution system quality, not readiness: 9/34 carryovers had been marked Ready at planning time.
| Metric | Value | How to read it |
|---|---|---|
| Committed completion | 35.8% (19/53) | Planned items marked Done ÷ all planned committed items |
| Committed carryover | 64.2% (34/53) | Planned committed carryovers ÷ all planned committed items |
| Finish predictability | 45.5% (15/33) | Finish-intent planned items done ÷ all finish-intent planned items |
| Progress predictability | 76.5% (13/17) | Progress items that behaved as intended by carrying |
| Added-during-sprint load | 52.5% (32/61) | Added items ÷ all visible items |
| Added work closure | 11/32 | All added items marked Done |
| Reactive load (bug share) | 33.3% (8/24) | Completed bugs ÷ all completed work |
| Planning quality | 24.5% (13/53) | Committed items marked Ready ÷ all committed items |
| Workflow-truth mismatches | 0 | Items marked Done in review while workflow status remained non-final |
Across included teams, the sprint did not fail; it traded predictability for responsiveness. 11/32 added items were closed, but that responsiveness came with 33.3% bug share and diluted committed completion.
The miss pattern is concentrated: 16 partial-completion carryovers, 3 dependency-driven misses, and 12 committed items that never really started.
Most misses were not caused by poor readiness. 9 of the 34 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 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 33.3% |
| Task | 6 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 29.2% |
| Bug | 2 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 8 | 33.3% |
| Signal | Value | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Committed items | 53 | Explicit promise set |
| Committed done | 19 | Closed as promised |
| Committed carry over | 34 | Unfinished promise |
| Committed items marked Ready | 13 | Planning-quality input |
| Carryovers marked Ready | 9 | Ready did not guarantee finish |
| Carryovers not started | 12 | Execution focus gap |
| Carryovers started but unfinished | 15 | Work moved, but did not close |
| Pattern | Count | What it suggests |
|---|---|---|
| Partial completion | 16 | Breakdown / sizing / stage-gating was not tight enough |
| Dependency delay | 3 | Capacity protection or dependency timing created slip |
| Not started | 12 | A committed item remained outside execution focus |
| In Progress / Code Review carryovers | 15 | 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 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. |
Included teams in this org pulse: Mobile, Team 1, Team 2, University.
Usage note: start with the top-line metrics, then use the traceability links to answer these questions with issue-level evidence.
| Snapshot | Issue count | Link |
|---|---|---|
| Planning snapshot raw list | 52 | 52 issues in the planning snapshot |
| Sprint review / outcome snapshot raw list | 66 | 66 issues in the Friday review snapshot |
| Normalized sprint fact base | 61 | 61 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.
| 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.