Thread 9 - done definition reporting breaks
Platform
Link
Post Text (Key Excerpt)
How do you handle “done” when a release can still break reporting?
One thing I keep running into on data-heavy products is that engineering and product do not always mean the same thing when they say a change is “done.” From the delivery side, the feature may work exactly as intended. The ticket is closed, acceptance criteria are met, QA passed, release moves on. But then a dashboard number shifts, an existing report stops matching historical logic, or a client ...Why It Matches Ryva ICP
This post shows a concrete handoff gap: engineering marks tickets done while downstream reporting breaks. It reflects unclear ownership boundaries and implicit assumptions between teams.
Underlying Problem
“Done” is defined locally, without shared ownership for downstream data/reporting integrity.
Suggested Public Response (Copy)
You're exposing a boundary bug in process, not code. If “done” excludes downstream reporting impact, teams close tickets while business behavior quietly regresses.Suggested DM Idea (Copy)
Great example of definition-of-done drift. If you want, I can share a compact release checklist that forces reporting/data ownership to be explicit before closure.Snapshot
- Subreddit: r/agile
- Author: u/individjournalist
- Age: 5.07 days (past week)
- Comments: 17