SSM Introducing Scrum in SAFe Practice Question

Answer analysis

Option-by-option breakdown

For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.

• ✓

  Demonstrate the working increment to stakeholders and use their feedback to adapt the Team Backlog.

  Why this is correct

  The Iteration Review is an inspect-and-adapt event where the team demonstrates a working, tested increment to stakeholders and captures feedback. That feedback informs backlog adaptation. Replacing the demonstration with slides removes the empirical inspection of the actual product, which is the core purpose of the event in Scrum and SAFe.

• ✗

  Replace the Iteration Review with a written status report distributed to ART stakeholders.

  Why it's wrong here

  A written status report is not a substitute for the Iteration Review. The review requires stakeholders to inspect a working increment and provide feedback that the team can act on. Removing the live demonstration removes the empirical evidence the team and stakeholders need to adapt, which contradicts both Scrum and SAFe practice.

• ✗

  Present the slide deck but limit questions to the Product Owner to keep the event timeboxed.

  Why it's wrong here

  Limiting questions to the Product Owner prevents stakeholders from inspecting the increment and offering feedback, which defeats the purpose of the review. Timeboxing is important, but it should not come at the cost of stakeholder collaboration. The event should still center on the demonstrated increment rather than a slide summary.

• ✗

  Postpone the review until the end of the PI so all four iterations can be demonstrated at once.

  Why it's wrong here

  The Iteration Review occurs at the end of each iteration so the team can inspect and adapt frequently. Waiting until the end of the PI eliminates three feedback cycles and delays learning. The System Demo at the end of the iteration serves the train-level view, but it does not replace the team's own Iteration Review.