A nonprofit program lead must show funders how ten community requests became shipped features: requests live in issues, code changes live in pull requests, and status lives on a board. Which collaboration setup best tracks and captures work across issues, pull requests, and projects for this audit trail?

The correct setup is right because it creates a complete funder-ready chain from community need to delivered value: the issue preserves the original request and discussion, the linked pull request preserves the exact code change and review, and the project board aggregates both objects with status and iteration fields to prove when each of the ten items moved from backlog to shipped. One plausible but incomplete approach links issues to pull requests with auto-close on merge yet omits the board entirely, which preserves development traceability but provides no portfolio view, no status history, and no iteration grouping for the audit. Another plausible routine tracks issues carefully on the board with status and iteration but mentions pull requests only in free-text comments, which keeps planning tidy while breaking the verifiable link between requirement and implementation that auditors need. A third common engineering-focused routine tracks pull requests on the board to demonstrate shipped output while skipping issue creation, which shows code activity but loses the originating community voice and prevents mapping each shipment back to its request. On exams, watch for stems that name all three surfaces together, since any workflow covering only two will look efficient but cannot satisfy the full traceability ask. As a practical check before the funder review, filter the board by iteration and click through each card to its linked issue and pull request to confirm every request has all three artifacts connected.