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

A feature-level progress view (features delivered vs. total backlog) provides meaningful high-level insight for stakeholders. Combined with velocity data, it enables realistic forecasting of remaining work completion.

**Why not A:** Meeting attendance is a participation activity metric with no direct relationship to whether valuable features are actually being delivered. Stakeholders attend meetings regardless of whether the project is on track, making this measure uninformative and potentially misleading at a dashboard level.

**Why not C:** Individual task completion percentages create a micromanagement dynamic inconsistent with agile team principles, and they do not aggregate meaningfully into overall project health. A high individual task completion rate does not confirm that the highest-priority business-value features are being finished or that the team is on track for release.

**Why not D:** Lines of code per day is a poor and often counterproductive proxy metric — more code can represent increased complexity, technical debt, or rework rather than more value delivered. Stakeholders need to understand which business features are ready for use, not how much code the team produced on any given day.