A public-health clinic app team completes and reviews stories every sprint, while leadership also keeps a twelve-month predictive baseline for a related facilities project. For the adaptive app work, which tracking emphasis is more appropriate?

For adaptive public-health clinic app work that completes and reviews stories every sprint, the more appropriate tracking emphasis is to track story completion and increment outcomes each sprint rather than relying only on a distant twelve-month predictive baseline. Adaptive tracking values frequent empirical evidence—completed stories and reviewed increments—so the team can inspect and adapt. A twelve-month baseline may still exist for a related facilities project, but it is not the primary progress signal for sprint-based civic app delivery.

Waiting twelve months before any progress review so variance data stays pure fails conceptually because adaptive methods require frequent inspection; deferred annual-only review defeats the approach. Ignoring increments entirely and managing only critical-path float on the facilities baseline fails because that predictive schedule control does not substitute for app-increment evidence. Replacing sprint reviews with a single end-of-year change-control board fails because yearly CCB rhythm is not the primary adaptive progress mechanism.

Exam caveat: CAPM associate depth stresses that frequent inspection beats deferred annual-only review for adaptive efforts, even when predictive baselines exist nearby in the portfolio. Operational check: keep sprint reviews and story completion metrics for the clinic app, report empirical forecasts to leadership, and separately manage the facilities baseline without forcing the app team to wait a year for feedback.