Sprint Review evidence for a building-permit product shows slower cycle time after a platform change. What should the Product Owner do about release expectations?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
The Review just showed permits taking longer after the platform swap. That is not a secret for the team hallway — it is the new weather. Change the outlook now, not at next year's budget picnic.
Full Explanation
Sprint Review is the inspect-and-adapt loop for product and forecast; slower cycle time on a building-permit product after a platform change is evidence that should promptly change stakeholder release expectations. Waiting until the next annual budget workshop to mention the slowdown turns a timely signal into a year-late surprise. Keeping the old forecast in council packets while discussing cycle time only inside the Scrum Team withholds transparency elected officials need. Asking the Scrum Master to restore the old cycle time before any stakeholder is told privatizes an empiricism problem and delays the Product Owner's release conversation. Exam caveat: PSPO II expects Product Owners to update expectations from Sprint Review evidence without waiting for annual finance rituals or a process fix first. Operational check: revise the permit-release outlook the same day Review shows slower cycle time, brief stakeholders on the new range, and identify backlog or platform adaptations for the next Sprint before any council packet reprints the stale date. Cycle-time regressions discovered in Sprint Review belong in the same day's stakeholder conversation for permit releases; delayed honesty becomes a political surprise later. Pair the updated range with the next backlog adaptations so officials see both the problem and the response.