SSM Supporting Team Events Practice Question
An Agile Team is preparing for their upcoming Iteration Review. A key stakeholder demands a formal, highly polished slide deck and a sign-off document before attending. How should the Scrum Master coach the team to handle this request?
⚠ Common exam trap
Test-takers frequently choose options that accommodate traditional waterfall practices, such as creating formal slide decks and sign-off documents.
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
✓
Coach the stakeholder on the purpose of the Iteration Review, inviting them to inspect the actual working system increment and provide feedback.
The Iteration Review in SAFe focuses on demonstrating working, tested system increments rather than slide decks or static documentation. The Scrum Master should coach the team to invite the stakeholder to inspect the actual working software and gather direct feedback. Emphasizing working system demos aligns with Agile principles and prevents teams from wasting valuable time on wasteful documentation.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Comply with the stakeholder by assigning two developers to build a comprehensive presentation deck and sign-off paperwork.
Why it's wrong here
Assigning two developers to build slides and sign-off paperwork consumes sprint capacity on non-increment work and institutionalises the gate the review is meant to replace. Producing formal documentation is appropriate for regulatory or contractual audit obligations, not routine stakeholder attendance.
- ✗
Exclude the stakeholder from the Iteration Review entirely to prevent them from imposing traditional waterfall review habits.
Why it's wrong here
Barring the stakeholder removes the transparency the Iteration Review exists to provide and forfeits their feedback on the increment. Exclusion is warranted only for behaviour that actively disrupts the event, such as harassment, not for requesting artefacts.
- ✓
Coach the stakeholder on the purpose of the Iteration Review, inviting them to inspect the actual working system increment and provide feedback.
Why this is correct
The Iteration Review exists to inspect the working increment and gather feedback, not to produce sign-off artefacts. Coaching the stakeholder toward the actual system satisfies the transparency and inspection constraint, redirecting effort from documentation theatre to genuine stakeholder collaboration.
- ✗
Postpone the Iteration Review by one week to give the team adequate time to produce the requested formal management report.
Why it's wrong here
Delaying the review by a week replaces the inspect-and-adapt cadence with a scheduled reporting milestone, so feedback arrives after the next iteration has already begun. Postponement suits dependency or capacity problems, not a stakeholder's documentation preference.
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.