POPM PI Execution Practice Question
A Product Owner learns that a key stakeholder will be unavailable during the upcoming Iteration Review. The stakeholder has been providing critical feedback that has shaped the team's backlog. What is the most appropriate action for the Product Owner to take?
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is believing that the Iteration Review must be rescheduled or canceled if a key stakeholder cannot attend, rather than proceeding and following up.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Proceed with the Iteration Review as scheduled and capture feedback from other attendees, then follow up with the stakeholder separately.
The Iteration Review should be held as scheduled to maintain cadence and allow stakeholders to inspect the increment. If a key stakeholder is absent, the Product Owner can gather feedback from other attendees and then follow up individually. This ensures the team receives necessary input without disrupting the regular event rhythm.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Skip the review and instead hold a team retrospective to discuss the stakeholder's absence.
Why it's wrong here
The Iteration Review and the retrospective serve different purposes. Skipping the review would deprive other stakeholders of the opportunity to see the increment and provide feedback. A retrospective focuses on team processes, not on product feedback. This action misaligns with SAFe principles.
- ✓
Proceed with the Iteration Review as scheduled and capture feedback from other attendees, then follow up with the stakeholder separately.
Why this is correct
The Iteration Review should occur at a regular cadence to inspect the increment and adapt the backlog. If a key stakeholder cannot attend, the Product Owner should still hold the event, gather feedback from others, and then seek the missing stakeholder's input through other means. This maintains transparency and continuous improvement.
- ✗
Cancel the Iteration Review and reschedule it for when the stakeholder is available.
Why it's wrong here
Canceling the Iteration Review disrupts the team's cadence and delays feedback for other stakeholders. The event should proceed as planned, with alternative ways to gather the missing stakeholder's input. Rescheduling may not be feasible and could set a precedent that undermines the regularity of the event.
- ✗
Ask the stakeholder to provide written feedback before the review and present it on their behalf.
Why it's wrong here
While written feedback is valuable, presenting it on behalf of the stakeholder does not replace the interactive dialogue of the Iteration Review. The event is meant for direct inspection and adaptation. This approach may also misinterpret the stakeholder's intent and misses the opportunity for real-time Q&A.
About these practice questions
This POPM question is part of Courseiva's 336-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official Scaled Agile exam blueprint
This POPM practice question is part of Courseiva's free Scaled Agile certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the POPM exam.