Our project plan and backlog disagree about scope. Which is authoritative?
Competing scope representationsDefine which record governs investment commitments and which governs detailed delivery choices. Reconcile them through explicit mappings and change decisions rather than choosing whichever looks healthier.
What to do now
- Compare outcomes and items across both records
- Identify genuine scope differences
- Confirm decision authority and mapping rules
- Update both views from the same decisions
When to escalate
Escalate when
The mismatch causes unauthorized work or omitted commitments.
Who decides
The delivery owner and relevant governance authority
Example
A release outcome links to its backlog items and approved exclusions.
Mistake to avoid
Maintaining two unrelated lists and calling them different perspectives.
Prevent a repeat
Check whether governance decisions use real delivery evidence rather than forcing incompatible reporting rituals.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Projects
- Tasks
- Documents
- Approvals
Keep decision milestones and iterative task work connected, with explicit evidence required at each approved gate. See the platform
Related cases
- The PMO asks for earned value on an evolving backlog. What should we consider?Measurement-method mismatch
- A fixed-scope contract conflicts with continuous user feedback. How do we manage it?Commercial-learning mismatch
- We have a RACI matrix, but people still disagree about responsibility. Why?Responsibility model not applied
- The vendor's proposal is vague about deliverables. What should be clarified?Ambiguous supplier scope