CAPM Practice: Determine how to plan project iterations

Consistently over-estimating indicates a calibration problem. The team should review completed stories and their actual effort compared to their estimates, looking for patterns (always over-estimate complex stories? Always under-estimate UI work?). This retrospective calibration improves future estimates empirically. Blanket percentage adjustments ignore the root cause of estimation error.

**Why not A:** Switching to hour-based estimates does not solve a calibration problem — it changes the unit of measurement without addressing the team's underlying tendency to misjudge complexity. Story points are intentionally abstract to capture uncertainty and relative effort; hours encourage false precision and can anchor discussions to task execution time rather than overall complexity.

**Why not C:** Applying a blanket 20% reduction treats all overestimates uniformly and ignores the patterns behind the errors. It also trains the team to adjust numbers mechanically rather than developing genuine estimation judgment through reflection on what caused the gap between estimate and actuality.

**Why not D:** Designating a single estimator removes the diversity of perspectives that makes team estimation accurate and buy-in high. Estimation skill develops through collective reflection and calibration against real delivery data; centralizing it in one person concentrates the bias of that individual and eliminates the cross-functional insights that improve forecast quality over time.