Skip to content

Signal reading session

60 minutes on the calendar-committed check date — the date that lived in the Feature Brief from the start. Witness the change. Write the five-line reading. Pick one of four outcomes. The session that turns a prediction into a check.

When

  • On the date in the brief — not the day before, not the week after. The discipline is calendar-committed.
  • At least 30 days after release for most predictions — enough time for behaviour to stabilise out of novelty.

Who

  • PO — facilitates; writes the reading.
  • Tech Lead — confirms the metric is being measured correctly.
  • CS Lead — adds the voice-of-customer paragraph within 24 hours.

Time-box

60 minutes. Enough to witness, measure, and write. Anything longer drifts into interpretation; the Retrospective does that.

Inputs

  • The Feature Brief's prediction (verbatim).
  • The baseline number (captured pre-release).
  • The leading and lagging signal dashboards.
  • The helpdesk reading from the past 4 weeks.
  • Access to the named person (for direct observation if the prediction is about a moment).

Agenda

TimeWhat
0–10 minRead the prediction aloud verbatim from the brief. The room hears what was promised, exactly.
10–30 minWitness the change. If the prediction is about a moment ("Gal grades in under 15 minutes"), watch Gal. If it's about a metric ("completion rate above 80%"), read the dashboard with the team. Observation over report.
30–45 minWrite the reading. Five lines: prediction · baseline · target · measured · gap. Use the Signal reading template.
45–55 minPick the outcome. Met · Missed honestly · Refuted · Not checked. One of four. "Kinda met" is hedging — pick.
55–60 minSign and file. PO signs; reading lives next to the brief; calendar entry for the next session (Retrospective).

Outputs

  • The signal reading (template) — filed next to the Feature Brief.
  • The outcome — recorded, public.
  • (Within 24h) CS Lead's voice-of-customer paragraph.
  • The reading as input to the retrospective scheduled within the week.

What good looks like

The reading is five lines and no flourish. "Predicted 15 minutes. Baseline 47 (n=12). Target <15. Measured 11m20s (n=8). Gap: better than predicted; the keyboard shortcut absorbed more time than the deep-link navigation we built for." That is a reading. "We've seen improvement" is not.

The team treats the reading as model correction, not validation. A Met outcome is documented; a Missed honestly outcome is celebrated as the most valuable kind of learning; a Refuted outcome triggers a serious portfolio conversation; a Not checked outcome is the only worthless outcome.

Anti-pattern

The check drifts off the calendar, the prediction "wasn't quite ready to check yet." Weeks pass; the chance to honestly read fades; outcome ends up as Not checked. Fix: the date in the brief is the commitment. If the metric isn't ready, the reading says so — that is the finding, not an excuse.

A second anti-pattern: reading by report, not by observation. The PO opens the dashboard, sees the number, writes the reading from the desk. The number says success; the lived experience disagrees. Fix: for any prediction about a moment, witness the moment. The number tells you how much; only observation tells you what is happening when the number says so.

A third: the outcome hedges. "Kinda met but with some caveats." The PO picks one of four. The caveats go in the gap line. The outcome line is the verdict.

See also

200apps · How We Work · NWIRE