The court case-management team wants a chatbot to write all acceptance criteria so the Product Owner can skip refinement. How should the Team Coach treat the AI?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A chatbot can sketch acceptance-criteria language the way a stencil sketches a form. The Product Owner and team still have to say what “done” means for a case-management story. Skipping refinement just ships the stencil.
Full Explanation
For a court case-management team, the Team Coach should treat AI as a draft aid for acceptance-criteria templates while humans retain backlog and quality ownership. A chatbot can sketch criteria language the way a stencil sketches a form; the Product Owner and team still decide what "done" means for each story. Skipping refinement because a model produced text treats an unverified draft as the definition of readiness.
Letting the chatbot own acceptance criteria so the Product Owner can skip refinement permanently fails because backlog content and quality ownership remain human accountabilities. Banning any AI draft because SAFe supposedly forbids tooling fails because responsible augmentation is allowed; the Framework is not a ban on drafting aids. Having the coach personally accept every AI-written criterion in place of the Product Owner fails because the coach must not absorb PO acceptance authority.
Exam caveat: human-in-the-loop is the SASM AI stance—draft support yes, unsupervised ownership no. Operational check: permit AI-assisted criteria drafts in refinement prep, require PO-and-team review before stories are ready, keep the coach out of acceptance authority, and reject any proposal to cancel refinement because "the bot already wrote it."