The immunization-registry team is arguing pair-programming versus solo work on the next stories. What source should the Scrum Master / Team Coach name first?

When the immunization-registry team argues pair-programming versus solo work on the next stories, the Scrum Master / Team Coach should name a methods and process disagreement about how work is done—not a diagnosis that people are difficult. Methods conflicts are legitimate and solvable with experiments and working agreements on public-health software. Casting it as a values war about whether public-health registries should exist inflates a process choice into an existential fight that blocks learning. Declaring one developer has a personality problem and should be reassigned personalizes a methods debate and destroys trust. Calling it an ART design defect that only the Release Train Engineer can rename as pairing policy removes team ownership of how they build. Exam caveat: SASM conflict sources include methods/process disagreements; personality labeling and RTE policy takeover are wrong first frames. Operational check: reframe the debate as methods, facilitate a timeboxed experiment (pairing on high-risk registry stories, solo on well-understood ones, or similar), define success criteria for quality and flow, and review results in the retrospective. Update the working agreement based on evidence rather than on who argued louder, and share the experiment pattern in Coach Sync if useful.