The Scrum Master serves the Scrum Team by coaching them and the organization on Scrum theory and practice. The most effective action is to educate and facilitate a conversation about Scrum’s core principles. The Sprint Goal creates focus, and the Developers must be protected to work on the Sprint Backlog. Option 0 addresses the root cause by aligning stakeholders and the Product Owner, fostering understanding rather than imposing arbitrary rules (Option 1), which may create resentment. Option 2 is impractical and removes the Developers from valuable feedback loops. Option 3 promotes unsustainable practices and ignores the underlying systemic issue.

The Sprint Review is a formal opportunity to inspect the outcome of the Sprint and adapt the Product Backlog if needed. The stakeholders’ feedback, even if surprising, is a direct input into this inspection. The most professional and productive response is to treat this as valuable information (Option 1) that can guide future work, maximizing the value of the product. Option 0 is counterproductive and violates Scrum’s pillar of respect. Option 3 dismisses the feedback and misses a learning opportunity. Option 4 is a drastic overreaction; Sprints are time-boxed and should not be cancelled lightly, and adaptation happens via the Product Backlog, not by cancelling the Sprint.

The Daily Scrum is a 15-minute time-boxed event for the Developers to plan their next day of work. While it may surface impediments, detailed problem-solving and technical debates often require more time and focus. The Scrum Master should coach the team to keep the Daily Scrum within its time-box and purpose. Option 1 is the best approach: it respects the event’s structure while ensuring the important technical discussion happens in a more appropriate setting. Option 0 allows the event to become ineffective. Option 3 undermines team self-management. Option 4 misinterprets the Product Owner’s role and escalates an issue the Developers should resolve themselves.

The core issue is a lack of focus and realistic scope for the Sprint. The Sprint Goal is a critical Scrum artifact that binds the Sprint together. It is a single objective for the Sprint, and the selected Product Backlog items should logically contribute to achieving it. Coaching the Product Owner (and the team) to formulate a clear Sprint Goal (Option 1) shifts the focus from a list of independent items to a collaborative objective. This helps in selecting a realistic amount of work that serves a common purpose. While the Definition of Done (Option 0) is important, it doesn’t directly address scope overcommitment. Option 3 is contrary to Scrum’s empirical, iterative approach. Option 4 addresses a symptom, not the cause, and puts pressure on the team rather than fixing the planning dysfunction.

A core principle for scaling is to preserve, not dilute, the core roles and accountabilities of Scrum. The Product Owner is accountable for maximizing the value of the product and for effective Product Backlog management. Introducing a committee between the market/customers and the Product Owners creates a bottleneck (Option 1). It slows down decision-making, obscures who is ultimately accountable for value and priority, and can lead to misalignment. While Option 0 is a true side effect, it is not the most significant risk. Option 2 is not directly related to the described structure. Option 3 is irrelevant to backlog management.

The purpose of the Definition of Done is to create a shared understanding of what it means for work to be complete. It is a formal description of the state of the Increment when it meets the quality measures required for the product. If an Increment deemed ‘done’ requires significant rework, the Definition of Done is inadequate. The Retrospective is the perfect event to inspect this and adapt. Option 0 directly addresses the root cause by strengthening the quality gate, which is a core practice of Scrum. Option 1 is a vague, unsustainable solution. Option 2 avoids the process issue by manipulating a time-box. Option 4 lowers quality standards, which is antithetical to creating a ‘potentially releasable’ Increment.

A key service the Scrum Master provides to the organization is leading and coaching it in Scrum adoption. This includes protecting the Scrum Team from external distractions and upholding the accountabilities of the Scrum roles. The Product Owner is the sole person accountable for managing the Product Backlog and its ordering. All work, including emergency bug fixes, must flow through the Product Owner for prioritization against other work. Option 1 correctly upholds this accountability while being polite and professional. Option 0 undermines the Product Owner, disrupts the Sprint, and sets a bad precedent. Option 3 is a bureaucratic response that may not fit the team’s workflow. Option 4 violates the Product Owner’s accountability and is an inefficient use of the team’s time for a prioritization decision.

The Nexus Daily Scrum is the event where integration issues are actively managed. During this event, representatives from each Scrum Team (or the entire Nexus) meet to inspect progress toward the Nexus Sprint Goal and identify any integration issues or newly discovered cross-team dependencies. Its focus is on coordinating the work of all teams to ensure a successful integrated Increment. The Nexus Sprint Review (Option 0) is for inspecting the integrated Increment. The Nexus Sprint Retrospective (Option 1) is for inspecting the Nexus process itself. Refinement (Option 3) is an ongoing activity, not a specific event designed for daily integration coordination.

As products and organizations scale, a single Product Backlog managed by one Product Owner can become a bottleneck. A recommended practice is to consider splitting the product into smaller, more manageable areas of focus (e.g., by feature set, subsystem, or customer journey). Each area can have its own Product Backlog, potentially managed by an Area Product Owner who aligns with a Chief Product Owner on the overall product vision and strategy (Option 1). This maintains clear accountability and focus. Option 0 fragments the product vision and leads to misalignment. Option 3 introduces a non-Scrum role (project manager) to do work that is the Product Owner’s accountability. Option 4 is chaotic and highly inefficient.

The Scrum Master serves the Scrum Team by coaching them and the organization on Scrum theory and practice. The most effective action is to educate and facilitate a conversation about Scrum’s core principles. The Sprint Goal creates focus, and the Developers must be protected to work on the Sprint Backlog. Option 0 addresses the root cause by aligning stakeholders and the Product Owner, fostering understanding rather than imposing arbitrary rules (Option 1), which may create resentment. Option 2 is impractical and removes the Developers from valuable feedback loops. Option 3 promotes unsustainable practices and ignores the underlying systemic issue.0