Correct Answer:

A Development Team claiming self-organization as a reason to stop theDaily Scrumreflects a misunderstanding of bothself-managementand the purpose of Scrum events. As a Scrum Master, I would address this through teaching, coaching, and empiricism rather than enforcement.
Daily Scrum Is Mandatory in Scrum
First, it must be made clear that theDaily Scrum is a required Scrum event. The Scrum Guide defines it as a
15-minute event held every working day of the Sprint for the Developers. Choosing to eliminate it means the team isno longer practicing Scrum, regardless of how well they collaborate informally.
Self-Organization Does Not Mean Skipping Empiricism
Self-organizing (self-managing) teams decidehowto do the work, notwhetherto inspect and adapt. Scrum events exist to upholdempirical process control. The Daily Scrum specifically enables:
* Transparencyabout progress toward the Sprint Goal,
* Inspectionof the Sprint Backlog and current plan,
* Adaptationof work for the next 24 hours.
Informal collaboration throughout the day does not replace theshared, intentional inspection momentthat the Daily Scrum provides.
The Daily Scrum Is Not a Ritual or Status Meeting
If the Daily Scrum feels like a needless ritual, this is asignal that it is not being used correctly. It should not be a status report or a meeting for the Scrum Master or Product Owner. Instead, it is aplanning event for the Developers, focused on how to best achieve the Sprint Goal.
As a Scrum Master, I would coach the team toimprove the Daily Scrum, for example by:
* Centering the discussion on progress toward the Sprint Goal,
* Making impediments and risks explicit,
* Using different formats that suit the team's context.
Risks of Removing the Daily Scrum
Removing the Daily Scrum reducestransparencyand delays inspection and adaptation. Problems such as integration issues, misalignment, or threats to the Sprint Goal may surface too late, increasing risk and waste.
Over time, this undermines predictability and value delivery.

Correct Answer:

When many Development Teams are working on a single product, there must beone shared Definition of Done (DoD)that applies toall teamsand tothe entire product Increment.
Single, Shared Definition of Done
Scrum requires that each Increment beusable and potentially releasable. When multiple teams contribute to one product, this means:
* There isone product, not multiple team products,
* There must therefore beone Definition of Donethat ensures consistency, quality, and transparency across all teams.
Having different Definitions of Done per team would result in:
* Inconsistent quality,
* Integration problems,
* Loss of transparency,
* Increments that are "Done" in isolation but not at the product level.
Integrated Increment-Level Definition of Done
The shared Definition of Done must includeintegration criteria, ensuring that:
* Work from all teams is integrated,
* The combined Increment meets quality and compliance standards,
* The product can be inspected and potentially released.
In scaled Scrum (e.g., Nexus), unintegrated work is explicitlynot considered Done, regardless of whether individual teams believe their work is complete.
Ownership and Evolution
While Developers collectively create and adhere to the Definition of Done, it applies at theproduct level, not the team level. As the product and organization mature, the Definition of Done may beexpanded, but it must always remain shared and transparent.

Correct Answer:

TheSprint Reviewis a key Scrum Event that directly enablesempiricism, which is the foundation of Scrum.
Empiricism is based on making decisions using what is known, observed, and learned, supported by the pillars oftransparency, inspection, and adaptation. The Sprint Review operationalizes these pillars at the product level.
How the Sprint Review Enables Empiricism
First, the Sprint Review createstransparencyby making the current state of the product visible. During the event, the Scrum Team presents a"Done" Product Incrementthat meets the Definition of Done. Stakeholders can see and often use the actual product rather than relying on reports or assumptions. This shared visibility ensures that discussions are grounded in reality.
Second, the Sprint Review enablesinspection. The Scrum Team and stakeholders jointly inspect the Increment and assess progress toward product goals. The Developers provide context about what was delivered, what was not, and what challenges were encountered. This inspection is focused on outcomes and value, not individual performance.
Third, the Sprint Review supportsadaptation. Based on the inspection and feedback, new insights emerge about customer needs, market conditions, risks, and opportunities. The Product Owner uses this information to adapt the Product Backlog, reordering items, adding new work, or refining existing items. This completes the empirical feedback loop by ensuring future decisions are based on the latest evidence.
Impact of Development Team Members Not Attending the Sprint Review
If some Developers are not present at the Sprint Review, empiricism is weakened.
First,transparency decreases. Developers possess critical, first-hand knowledge about implementation details, technical trade-offs, constraints, and risks. Without their presence, stakeholders receive an incomplete picture of the Increment and its implications.
Second,inspection becomes less effective. Stakeholders may ask questions about behavior, limitations, or quality that only Developers can accurately answer. The absence of Developers limits meaningful dialogue and reduces the quality of inspection.
Third,adaptation suffers. Decisions about what to do next-such as changes to scope, priorities, or technical direction-depend on accurate understanding. Without Developers participating, adaptations to the Product Backlog may be based on assumptions rather than evidence, increasing the risk of poor decisions.
Finally, excluding Developers underminesScrum Values, particularlyRespect and Openness, by treating the Sprint Review as a reporting event rather than a collaborative working session. This can lead to disengagement and reduced shared ownership of product outcomes.