Skip to content

Signal reading session ​

60 minutes on the calendar-committed check date — the date that lived in the Feature Brief from the start. Witness the change. Write the five-line reading. Pick one of four outcomes. The session that turns a prediction into a check.

When ​

  • On the date in the brief — not the day before, not the week after. The discipline is calendar-committed.
  • At least 30 days after release for most predictions — enough time for behaviour to stabilise out of novelty.

Who ​

  • PO — facilitates; writes the reading.
  • Tech Lead — confirms the metric is being measured correctly.
  • CS Lead — adds the voice-of-customer paragraph within 24 hours.

Time-box ​

60 minutes. Enough to witness, measure, and write. Anything longer drifts into interpretation; the Retrospective does that.

Inputs ​

  • The Feature Brief's prediction (verbatim).
  • The baseline number (captured pre-release).
  • The leading and lagging signal dashboards.
  • The helpdesk reading from the past 4 weeks.
  • Access to the named person (for direct observation if the prediction is about a moment).

Agenda ​

TimeWhat
0–10 minRead the prediction aloud verbatim from the brief. The room hears what was promised, exactly.
10–30 minWitness the change. If the prediction is about a moment ("Gal grades in under 15 minutes"), watch Gal. If it's about a metric ("completion rate above 80%"), read the dashboard with the team. Observation over report.
30–45 minWrite the reading. Five lines: prediction · baseline · target · measured · gap. Use the Signal reading template.
45–55 minPick the outcome. Met · Missed honestly · Refuted · Not checked. One of four. "Kinda met" is hedging — pick.
55–60 minSign and file. PO signs; reading lives next to the brief; calendar entry for the next session (Retrospective).

Outputs ​

  • The signal reading (template) — filed next to the Feature Brief.
  • The outcome — recorded, public.
  • (Within 24h) CS Lead's voice-of-customer paragraph.
  • The reading as input to the retrospective scheduled within the week.

What good looks like ​

The reading is five lines and no flourish. "Predicted 15 minutes. Baseline 47 (n=12). Target <15. Measured 11m20s (n=8). Gap: better than predicted; the keyboard shortcut absorbed more time than the deep-link navigation we built for." That is a reading. "We've seen improvement" is not.

The team treats the reading as model correction, not validation. A Met outcome is documented; a Missed honestly outcome is celebrated as the most valuable kind of learning; a Refuted outcome triggers a serious portfolio conversation; a Not checked outcome is the only worthless outcome.

Anti-pattern ​

The check drifts off the calendar, the prediction "wasn't quite ready to check yet." Weeks pass; the chance to honestly read fades; outcome ends up as Not checked. Fix: the date in the brief is the commitment. If the metric isn't ready, the reading says so — that is the finding, not an excuse.

A second anti-pattern: reading by report, not by observation. The PO opens the dashboard, sees the number, writes the reading from the desk. The number says success; the lived experience disagrees. Fix: for any prediction about a moment, witness the moment. The number tells you how much; only observation tells you what is happening when the number says so.

A third: the outcome hedges. "Kinda met but with some caveats." The PO picks one of four. The caveats go in the gap line. The outcome line is the verdict.

See also ​

200apps · How We Work · NWIRE