Two teams on the transit ART each demand the same release window. Dates are the positions; rider communication and rollback safety are the interests. What should the Scrum Master / Team Coach do?

Interest-based problem-solving invents options that satisfy interests rather than declaring a single winner on a positional date. When two teams on a transit ART each demand the same release window, dates are positions while rider communication and rollback safety are interests; the Scrum Master / Team Coach should generate options that serve communication and rollback safety rather than crowning a single winner date. Sequenced releases, shared communication plans, or staggered cutovers can protect riders better than a first-reserved victory.

Awarding the window to the team that reserved it first fails by concept: reservation order is positional, not interest-based. Canceling both releases so nobody wins fails by concept by destroying value instead of inventing options that serve riders. Asking the CIO to pick a date in email and skip the conversation fails by concept: authority substitution avoids interest exploration on transit releases.

Exam caveat: SASM teaches generating options from interests before positional adjudication; executive fiat and first-come awards are distractors. A date will eventually be chosen—the quality of that choice depends on whether rider communication and rollback safety shaped the options.

Operational check: name the shared interests, brainstorm multiple release patterns, assess communication and rollback for each, agree on a sequenced or shared plan, and verify both teams can explain how riders are protected rather than who "won" the window.