SSM Supporting ART Events Practice Question
A Scrum Master is helping a team get more value from the Inspect and Adapt event. Which TWO activities are appropriate for the Scrum Master to facilitate or support within that event? (Choose two.)
⚠ Common exam trap
The trap here is mixing PI Planning mechanics such as confidence voting into the Inspect and Adapt, or turning root-cause analysis into individual accountability rather than systemic improvement.
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
✓
Helping the team participate in the problem-solving workshop by using root-cause analysis to address a systemic issue identified in the current PI.
The Inspect and Adapt moves from quantitative measurement of the current state to a retrospective-style review and then a structured problem-solving workshop. Scrum Masters add value by ensuring the team's metrics are credibly represented and by helping the team engage in root-cause analysis that yields durable corrective actions. Presenting business value, running confidence votes, or assigning blame fall outside that facilitation role.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✓
Helping the team participate in the problem-solving workshop by using root-cause analysis to address a systemic issue identified in the current PI.
Why this is correct
The problem-solving workshop is a structured part of the Inspect and Adapt where the ART selects a significant problem and applies root-cause analysis to find a durable corrective action. A Scrum Master supports this by helping the team contribute meaningfully, keep the analysis honest, and commit to improvements that can be carried into the next PI, which is exactly the event's adaptive purpose.
- ✗
Facilitating the confidence vote that determines whether the ART accepts the PI objectives at the end of the event.
Why it's wrong here
Confidence voting on PI objectives belongs to PI Planning, where teams and stakeholders assess the plan's feasibility before committing. The Inspect and Adapt closes a PI by reviewing results and solving problems, not by voting on objectives. Confusing the two events leads to misplaced facilitation effort and misrepresents where planning commitment is actually established.
- ✓
Ensuring the team's metrics and current state are represented in the quantitative measurement portion so the ART inspects real data rather than impressions.
Why this is correct
The Inspect and Adapt begins with a quantitative measurement of the current state, such as program predictability and other agreed metrics. A Scrum Master helps ensure the team's data is accurate, available, and understood so the ART's inspection is grounded in evidence. That preparation directly supports meaningful adaptation in the later problem-solving workshop.
- ✗
Presenting the team's PI objectives and their final business value scores on behalf of the Product Owner during the program review.
Why it's wrong here
The program review portion of the Inspect and Adapt is led by the Product Management and Release Train Engineer with the Product Owner involved, not by the Scrum Master acting as a proxy. Presenting business value scores is a business ownership responsibility, and substituting for it would blur accountability. The Scrum Master supports the team's preparation rather than presenting business results on others' behalf.
- ✗
Assigning the root causes to specific team members so accountability for the improvement actions is clearly documented.
Why it's wrong here
The problem-solving workshop identifies root causes and corrective actions for the ART as a system, not individual blame assignments. Assigning causes to people undermines the psychological safety the workshop depends on and misreads the systemic intent of the analysis. Accountability for improvement actions can be agreed, but the Scrum Master should not convert a system problem into individual fault.
About these practice questions
One of 385 original SSM practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. 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 SSM 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 SSM exam.