CAPM Practice: Determine how to plan project iterations

High velocity variance suggests unstable team capacity or estimation issues. Using a rolling average (e.g., last 3 iterations) while accounting for known changes (vacations, new team members) provides a more reliable planning basis.

**Why not B:** Planning to the highest historical velocity (50 points) is an optimistic fallacy — it assumes exceptional conditions will repeat and ignores the variance that already makes the team's output unreliable. Consistently over-committing leads to incomplete work at the end of iterations, team stress, and erodes stakeholder trust in the team's estimates over time.

**Why not C:** Committing to zero points is neither practical nor useful. While it is important not to over-commit during unstable periods, teams must continue delivering value each iteration. Zero-point commitments would halt product progress and provide no useful velocity signal to help stabilize future planning.

**Why not D:** Velocity and capacity planning are development team responsibilities — the product owner's role is to prioritize what to build, not to determine how much the team can deliver. Delegating capacity decisions to the PO violates the team's self-organizing principle and would likely produce commitments that ignore actual technical constraints and team availability.