SSM Supporting Team Events Practice Question
At the Iteration Review, a key stakeholder expresses deep dissatisfaction because a delivered feature does not function the way they envisioned, despite meeting all written acceptance criteria. What should the Scrum Master facilitate to prevent this in future iterations?
⚠ Common exam trap
Candidates often suggest waiting for the next review or formalizing documentation, failing to realize that the issue is a lack of continuous feedback loop.
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
✓
Facilitate ongoing stakeholder engagement and encourage the Product Owner to involve stakeholders in refinement sessions.
Misalignment between stakeholder expectations and team output indicates a breakdown in continuous engagement and feedback loops. The Scrum Master should facilitate closer collaboration between the Product Owner, stakeholders, and the team throughout the iteration, rather than waiting until the formal review.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Bar the dissatisfied stakeholder from attending future Iteration Review meetings to avoid negative feedback.
Why it's wrong here
Excluding the stakeholder removes the feedback channel that surfaces requirement misunderstandings, so the mismatch would persist unnoticed. Barring attendance is tempting because negative feedback feels disruptive, but the Iteration Review exists precisely to inspect the increment and adapt; the correct response is to improve collaboration and acceptance-criteria refinement.
- ✗
Rewrite all future acceptance criteria yourself to ensure stakeholders never complain again.
Why it's wrong here
The Scrum Master owns no requirement authorship; rewriting criteria unilaterally removes the Product Owner's accountability and the team's shared understanding. It is tempting because tighter criteria appear to close the feedback gap, but the real fix is involving the stakeholder in refining acceptance criteria during backlog refinement.
- ✓
Facilitate ongoing stakeholder engagement and encourage the Product Owner to involve stakeholders in refinement sessions.
Why this is correct
Written acceptance criteria alone cannot capture tacit expectations, so stakeholders must see working increments and shape the backlog continuously. Involving them in refinement gives the Product Owner earlier feedback, closing the gap between documented criteria and actual vision.
- ✗
File a formal complaint against the stakeholder with the Agile Program Management Office.
Why it's wrong here
Escalating to the APMO addresses governance, not the underlying gap: acceptance criteria were written without the stakeholder validating them. It is tempting because formal escalation exists for persistent stakeholder misconduct, yet here the failure is requirements elicitation, which the Scrum Master resolves through collaboration, not complaints.
About these practice questions
This SSM question is part of Courseiva's 385-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 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.