Stakeholders complain that they have no idea what is happening between Sprint Reviews. A manager proposes a fortnightly "stakeholder sync" in the middle of every Sprint, with the Developers presenting progress and fielding questions. What should the Scrum Master point out?

Professional Scrum Master I, objective 3. Managing products with agility medium

Machine-checked — no person has signed for it. This question was read against the source cited below by an automated pass, which found no contradiction. That is a weaker claim than it sounds: the same kind of process wrote the question, so it can confirm its own mistake.

Treat it as a good draft rather than as settled fact, and read the source below before you rely on it. It is not used in mock exams here — only questions a person has signed for are.

The options

Not correct Scrum forbids meetings that are not Scrum events, so the sync cannot go ahead

Wrong. Scrum forbids nothing of the sort — the Scrum Team talks to stakeholders whenever it is useful, and Developers often meet during the day to re-plan. The framework minimises the need for extra meetings; it does not ban them.

Not correct The sync should replace the Sprint Review, which becomes redundant once stakeholders see progress mid-Sprint

Wrong. The Sprint Review is where the Increment is inspected and the Product Backlog adapted; a progress update inspects nothing and adapts nothing, so removing the Review removes the only formal inspection point stakeholders have.

Correct Scrum events exist to create regularity and to minimise the need for meetings not defined in Scrum — the real complaint is that the artefacts are not visible, and a standing progress meeting treats the symptom

Correct. It names the underlying failure. Make the Product Backlog and the Increment genuinely inspectable and keep the Sprint Review a working session, and the appetite for a mid-Sprint status meeting usually evaporates.

Not correct The Scrum Master should attend the sync and report on the team's behalf, so the Developers are not interrupted mid-Sprint

Wrong. Reporting on the team is not a Scrum Master accountability, and doing it makes them the status channel between stakeholders and the team rather than the person removing the barriers between them.

Why

Every Scrum event is a formal opportunity to inspect and adapt an artefact, and the events are shaped so that the regular ones remove the reason to invent more. A request for a mid-Sprint status meeting is nearly always a transparency problem in disguise — stakeholders who could see the Product Backlog and a genuinely usable Increment would not need one. Fix the artefact first; if a conversation still helps, have it, but do not let it grow into a shadow Sprint Review.

Where this comes from

Cited
Scrum Guide section Scrum Events
What it says
Events are used in Scrum to create regularity and to minimize the need for meetings not defined in Scrum.

Practise this

Reading one question is not practice. The trainer will draw a set from objective 3 and space the ones you get wrong.

Practise Professional Scrum Master I

More questions on this objective

All questions on Managing products with agility