Plan-review staff insist on "always more documents" while applicants' advocates insist on "always fewer." How should the Scrum Master / Team Coach apply interest-based problem-solving?

Interest-based problem-solving explores interests under positions. When plan-review staff insist on "always more documents" while applicants' advocates insist on "always fewer," the Scrum Master / Team Coach should move both sides from positions to interests—safety versus time-to-permit—then search for options that serve those needs. That approach can yield tiered document sets, early completeness checks, or risk-based requirements that protect life safety without needless delay for applicants.

Picking the louder position so the meeting can end fails by concept: volume is not a legitimate decision criterion for municipal plan review. Splitting the document list in half as a permanent rule fails by concept: unprincipled compromise may under-serve safety and still frustrate applicants. Asking the Release Train Engineer to declare the document count as a PI Objective fails by concept by turning a design/policy conflict into a false train metric.

Exam caveat: SASM interest-based problem-solving requires separating positions from interests and inventing options; positional wins and midpoints are common distractors. Safety statutes still bind—interest-based work finds compliant options, not waivers of required life-safety documentation.

Operational check: ask each side what interest they must protect, list safety and time-to-permit needs visibly, generate at least two options beyond more/fewer, evaluate options against criteria, and verify the next plan-review debate starts from interests rather than document-count slogans.