CAPM Practice: Determine how to document project controls for an adaptive project

Honesty about forecast precision is important for both ethical and practical reasons. Given velocity variation of 30-50 (67% range), a ±1 week precision claim would be false precision. The appropriate response provides: the range-based forecast (best case at 50/sprint, expected at ~40/sprint, conservative at 30/sprint), expressed as completion date ranges with confidence levels. This accurately represents the adaptive team's forecast capability while providing the auditors with actionable planning information.

**Why not B:** Using only minimum velocity produces a single-point forecast that is technically conservative but still false precision. It does not communicate the full uncertainty range to auditors, and presenting it as "the forecast" without a confidence interval misrepresents the team's actual predictive capability. A single worst-case date is still a single date — and with 30-50 point variability, even the minimum may not be reliable.

**Why not C:** Claiming ±1 week precision based on median velocity is a form of false precision that misrepresents what the data actually supports. With velocity varying by 67% (30-50 points), the delivery window spans multiple sprints, not days. Providing an artificially narrow confidence interval could mislead auditors who make real decisions based on that information, raising both ethical and professional concerns.

**Why not D:** Refusing to forecast entirely is unnecessarily unhelpful and professionally inadequate. Adaptive projects can and do provide probabilistic forecasts — the appropriate response is to communicate the uncertainty honestly through ranges and confidence intervals, not to withhold all predictive information. A skilled practitioner uses the available velocity data to produce a meaningful, well-scoped forecast.