Housing-voucher refinement never includes the people who talk to residents, so stories keep missing eligibility facts. How should the Scrum Master / Team Coach change the event?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Refining housing vouchers without the people who sit with residents is writing a menu without tasting the food. The event's outcome is a backlog that is actually true. Invite the voices who know eligibility, or the stories stay fiction.
Full Explanation
Refinement needs the voices who can speak to resident outcomes. Housing-voucher stories that exclude caseworkers keep missing eligibility facts and produce unusable backlog. The Scrum Master / Team Coach brings those voices into refinement so stories become valid and flowable. Developer-only sessions optimize for technical neatness and fail applicants later.
Keeping refinement developer-only to stay short trades speed for defective readiness. Sending the Product Owner a survey after refinement is a weak substitute for live clarification. Waiting for Inspect and Adapt to discover eligibility gaps after the PI delays learning until residents already felt the miss.
Exam caveat: readiness includes domain truth, not only technical tasks. Operational check: if voucher stories bounce on eligibility, invite caseworkers to the next refinement before planning more fiction.
In municipal ARTs, residents experience these coaching choices as faster or slower public services—licensing lines, housing decisions, water bills, snow routes, and emergency response—so keep events and buffers tied to inspect-and-adapt outcomes. Record the decision, the owner, and the next inspection date so the team can verify civic impact.