In a Disciplined Agile mindset, when faced with significant uncertainty (unknowns), the appropriate approach is to plan at a higher level based on outcomes and goals, not detailed tasks. Creating a roadmap focused on learning milestones allows the team to empirically explore the unknowns and adapt their plan based on evidence, which is core to agile’s empirical process control. This is preferable to pretending uncertainty doesn’t exist (option D), merely adding buffer (option B), or halting all planning (option C).

Disciplined Agile emphasizes that tailoring is a continuous, context-sensitive, and collaborative process. A team’s Way of Working (WoW) is never static; it should be regularly inspected and adapted based on the current situation, feedback, and what the team is learning. This is a fundamental principle that differentiates it from a set-and-forget (option A) or a purely convenience-driven (option C) approach. Option D contradicts the collaborative and pragmatic ethos of DA.

The daily stand-up (or Daily Scrum) is a key inspect-and-adapt event for the *team*. Its goal is synchronization and planning, not reporting. The focus is on progress toward the Sprint Goal, coordinating work, and surfacing impediments—not on providing status to outsiders (option A), solving problems in detail (option C), or creating individual commitments (option D). This aligns with the Disciplined Agile principle of enabling team self-organization and flow.

Disciplined Agile advocates for a holistic, lifecycle approach to quality. The most effective strategy is to “shift left”—meaning to integrate testing, code reviews, and other quality practices early and continuously in the workflow. This builds quality in, rather than trying to inspect it in at the end (option A). While a good DoD (option D) is important, it is a supporting mechanism. Option B addresses a symptom, not the root cause. Building in quality is a core objective of the Continuous Improvement: Quality process goal in the DA toolkit.

The retrospective is the cornerstone of a team’s continuous improvement cycle. Its purpose is to look at the *process* (the way of working), not the people, and to generate actionable experiments the team can try. It is a safe, forward-looking event focused on adaptation, not blame (option B), reporting (option C), or ceremony for its own sake (option A). This aligns directly with the DA principle of “Pragmatism” and the process goal of “Continuous Improvement.”

Disciplined Agile emphasizes collaborative and informed decision-making. When facing a priority conflict, using an objective, economic framework like WSJF helps stakeholders move from opinion-based to value-based discussions. It considers factors like user value, time criticality, and risk reduction. This is more effective and empowering than forcing a solo decision (option A), letting the team decide on business priority (option C), or immediately escalating (option D), which should be a last resort.

A core tenet of Disciplined Agile is *context counts*. It provides a toolkit of choices, not a single prescription. Mandating identical practices (like fixed sprint lengths and ceremonies) for all teams ignores critical contextual factors such as team maturity, domain complexity, and delivery frequency. DA would guide teams to *choose* their lifecycle and tailor their WoW based on their specific situation, making option B the correct critique. Options A and C represent a prescriptive, rather than a pragmatic, agile approach.

Disciplined Agile is pragmatic and goal-driven. The goal is reliable forecasting, not performing a specific ceremony. If a team finds that flow-based metrics (like cycle time) provide more accurate or less wasteful forecasts for their context, experimenting with this change is perfectly aligned with DA’s principles of continuous improvement and context sensitivity. The approach is to run a time-boxed experiment, inspect the results, and adapt. This contrasts with dogmatic adherence (option A) or blanket rejection (option B) of any practice.

This definition captures the essence of an MVP from a lean-agile perspective. The focus is on *learning* and *value*, not on feature completeness (option A) or polish (option D). An MVP is a strategic experiment to test fundamental business hypotheses with minimal effort. Option C ignores the collaborative and value-driven nature of scope definition, which should involve business and product roles.

In a Disciplined Agile mindset, when faced with significant uncertainty (unknowns), the appropriate approach is to plan at a higher level based on outcomes and goals, not detailed tasks. Creating a roadmap focused on learning milestones allows the team to empirically explore the unknowns and adapt their plan based on evidence, which is core to agile’s empirical process control. This is preferable to pretending uncertainty doesn’t exist (option D), merely adding buffer (option B), or halting all planning (option C).0