A senior inspector on the food-safety team states positions as if they were facts. What should the Scrum Master / Team Coach coach?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A position dressed up as a fact is a closed door. Observations plus a check—what might be missing—leave the door open. The food-safety inspector can still have a strong view without pretending it is physics.
Full Explanation
When a senior inspector on a food-safety team states positions as if they were facts, the Scrum Master / Team Coach should coach speaking in "I" observations and checking assumptions instead of disguising positions as facts. Positions-as-facts shut down inquiry and make quieter teammates unable to surface contrary evidence about inspections. Letting positions stand as facts so the senior inspector is never questioned institutionalizes hierarchy over learning. Requiring everyone to argue only in policy citations with no personal observation may swing to the opposite extreme and still miss field reality. Asking the RTE to publish the inspector's position as ART policy elevates one person's stance into train doctrine without team dialogue. Exam caveat: SASM conflict communication distinguishes observations and assumptions from asserted facts; unchallengeable seniority and RTE rubber-stamps are distractors. Operational check: coach the inspector to restate a disputed claim as an observation plus assumption, invite contrary evidence from the team, update the story or checklist with what was actually verified, and reinforce the language pattern in the next few refinements. Watch whether junior inspectors begin contributing without fear of "correcting" a fact-disguised position.