LEARN. PRACTICE. GROW.Concept and mechanism
A review enables results to be inspected with users and future work to be adjusted. A retrospective focuses on improving how work is performed. The two produce different, complementary learning. A stage boundary considers a broader commitment: integrated results, forecast, justification, risk, and resources to continue. Adding points from teams using different scales does not establish that viability. Management should allow delivery evidence to influence investment decisions without turning each review into automatic budget authorization or each stage decision into a daily technical meeting.
Guided application
When a problem recurs, ask which change will be tried, who implements it, and how its effect will be checked. Recording the same sentence in every set of minutes does not produce improvement. At closure, confirm product acceptance, support capability, remaining actions, and owners. A backlog need not disappear for the product to keep evolving; what needs clarity is who decides and funds later work. If delivery does not yet enable autonomous support, expose that gap before recommending closure. Workshops should end with retrievable decisions, owners, and checkpoints.
Three completed reviews do not replace integration evidence when the board decides to fund the next stage.
Common pitfalls
Review as automatic acceptance; retrospective without action; deleting backlog to close; access as demonstrated support.
Related topics: Product, operations, and AI support · Mindset, feedback, and flow
Inspect, learn, and transfer responsibilities explicitly.
Reference: PRINCE2 Agile Foundation syllabus · Version 2; inspected syllabus 2.0 (May 2025); revision 2.1 comparison pending