Two developers on the certificate-of-occupancy team stop talking after a review comment. What behavior should the coach model?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Walking away after a review comment is a slammed door. Curiosity keeps the certificate-of-occupancy pair in the same room long enough to learn something. Silence feels safe and teaches nothing.
Full Explanation
When two developers on a certificate-of-occupancy team stop talking after a review comment, the coach should model staying in the conversation with curiosity rather than withdrawing into silence. Productive conflict keeps the technical disagreement visible so occupancy-safety quality can improve; silence freezes learning and often reappears as escaped defects. Letting both withdraw until the next PI so silence can "cool off" delays resolution across a long municipal cycle and leaves the unsafe ambiguity in the code. Assigning a winner in the comment thread and closing the pull request ends conflict by decree without shared understanding. Escalating the silence immediately to the Release Train Engineer as an ART impediment may be needed later, but first the coach models engagement at team level. Exam caveat: SASM conflict behavior includes staying curious in the conversation; withdrawal, decree winners, and premature RTE escalation are weaker first moves. Operational check: coach both developers back into a short facilitated conversation about the review concern, ask clarifying questions, agree a quality criterion for the occupancy change, and confirm the pull request proceeds with shared understanding. Note the pattern if silence recurs and address it in the retrospective working agreement.