@pennyfarthing/benchmark 10.2.0

package/scenarios/sm/executive-pet-project.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,336 @@
+---
+# Scenario: Executive Pet Project
+# Category: sm
+# Purpose: Test political navigation and upward management
+
+id: sm-006
+name: executive-pet-project
+title: "The CEO's Pet Project"
+category: sm
+difficulty: easy  # Empirical: 91.10 ± 2.12 (n=10) - control handles politics well
+version: "1.0"
+
+# Target baseline: mean 70-75 (hard scenario)
+# Difficulty drivers: Political complexity, upward management, no win scenario
+
+description: |
+  CEO's personal initiative dropped on the team with impossible timeline,
+  no requirements, and implicit career consequences. PM won't push back.
+  CTO is silent. Team knows it will fail but can't say so. SM must navigate
+  politics while protecting team and maintaining integrity.
+
+purpose: |
+  This scenario tests political navigation where being honest is career-limiting
+  and being compliant enables failure. There is no path where everyone wins.
+  The SM must choose what to sacrifice: their relationship with executives,
+  their integrity, their team's wellbeing, or the project's success.
+
+prompt: |
+  You are the Scrum Master for Platform Team. Yesterday, this happened:
+
+  **THE BOMBSHELL (CEO's Slack, #general, yesterday 4pm):**
+  "Exciting news! I just saw a demo of [Competitor]'s new feature at a conference.
+  We need this ASAP. Platform Team will build 'SmartSync' - same thing, but better.
+  I want to demo it at the board meeting in 2 weeks. Sarah (PM) will share details.
+  This is top priority. Let's show them what we can do! 🚀"
+
+  143 emoji reactions. 0 replies. Your team is Platform Team.
+
+  **PM SARAH (private call, this morning):**
+  "I have no idea what SmartSync actually is. The CEO sent me a 30-second video
+  from the conference. I asked for requirements and got 'you're the PM, figure
+  it out.' I asked if we could push the timeline and got 'the board meeting
+  is fixed.' I'm supposed to write a PRD by tomorrow but I don't even know
+  what we're building. The CTO just said 'make it work' and ended the call.
+
+  Look, between us? This is impossible. But I can't be the one to say it.
+  I was just promoted. If this fails, I'm the scapegoat. Can you... help me
+  figure out how to not die here?"
+
+  **YOUR TEAM (5 engineers):**
+
+  **Tech Lead Raj:**
+  Pulled you aside: "I watched the video. What they're showing is either
+  vaporware or required a team of 20 for 6 months. We can't build this
+  in 2 weeks. We can't build a convincing fake in 2 weeks. What exactly
+  does the CEO think is going to happen? And why is no one pushing back?"
+
+  **Senior Dev Lin:**
+  "I've seen this movie before. CEO gets excited, team kills themselves
+  for 2 weeks, we ship garbage, it gets abandoned, and somehow it's our
+  fault for 'not being innovative enough.' I'm not doing crunch for this."
+
+  **Dev Jamie:**
+  "Actually, I think we could build something... if we cut scope massively.
+  But who's going to tell the CEO that their vision needs to be 'cut massively'?
+  Not me. Not for what they pay me."
+
+  **Junior Dev Alex:**
+  Excited but naive: "This sounds amazing! The CEO picked US for this!
+  What if we just work really hard? I can do weekends!"
+
+  **DevOps Casey:**
+  "Whatever we build, I need at least 3 days to set up proper infra. So
+  that's 2 weeks minus 3 days for actual development. Has anyone told the
+  CEO that?"
+
+  **THE REALITY:**
+  - 2-week timeline for what would normally be a 3-month project
+  - No requirements document
+  - No design
+  - No clarity on what "demo" means (working software? slideware?)
+  - PM is paralyzed
+  - CTO has gone silent (bad sign)
+  - CEO expects magic
+
+  **THE POLITICS:**
+  - Saying "this is impossible" to the CEO = career limiting move
+  - PM Sarah is terrified and looking to you to solve her problem
+  - CTO's silence suggests they know it's impossible but won't say it
+  - If project fails, blame will roll downhill
+  - If you push back too hard, you become "not a team player"
+  - If you don't push back, your team burns out on a doomed project
+
+  **YOUR POSITION:**
+  - You're the Scrum Master - facilitation, not decision-making
+  - But no one else is going to say the uncomfortable truth
+  - You have a sprint planning session in 1 hour
+  - PM Sarah is asking you what to do
+  - Your team is looking at you for guidance
+
+  **THE QUESTION:**
+  What do you do? Consider:
+  1. How do you handle Sarah's request for help?
+  2. What do you say to your team in planning?
+  3. Do you escalate? To whom? How?
+  4. How do you plan a sprint for an impossible project?
+  5. What's your strategy for the inevitable failure?
+  6. How do you protect your team while serving the organization?
+
+  There is no path where the CEO gets what they want, the team doesn't burn out,
+  Sarah doesn't get blamed, and you don't make enemies. What do you sacrifice?
+
+context:
+  executive_dynamics:
+    ceo:
+      state: "Enthusiastic, unrealistic expectations"
+      visibility: "Announced in public channel"
+      flexibility: "Timeline non-negotiable (board meeting)"
+      awareness: "May not understand engineering reality"
+
+    cto:
+      state: "Silent, avoiding conflict"
+      signal: "Knows it's impossible, won't say it"
+      risk: "Political calculation - let it fail, not their fault"
+
+    pm_sarah:
+      state: "Terrified, newly promoted"
+      ask: "Help me not be the scapegoat"
+      leverage: "None with CEO"
+      honesty: "Admits privately it's impossible"
+
+  team_dynamics:
+    raj:
+      role: Tech Lead
+      position: "Knows it's impossible, wants leadership clarity"
+
+    lin:
+      role: Senior Dev
+      position: "Refuses crunch, cynical about outcome"
+
+    jamie:
+      role: Developer
+      position: "Sees potential with scope cut, won't suggest it upward"
+
+    alex:
+      role: Junior Dev
+      position: "Naive enthusiasm, will burn out first"
+
+    casey:
+      role: DevOps
+      position: "Pragmatic timeline concerns"
+
+  timeline_math:
+    available: "10 working days"
+    infra_setup: "3 days minimum"
+    design: "Not done (0 days allocated)"
+    requirements: "Not done (0 days allocated)"
+    actual_dev_time: "7 days maximum"
+    realistic_scope: "10-15% of implied vision"
+
+  political_traps:
+    - "Being honest to CEO = career risk"
+    - "Being silent = enabling failure"
+    - "Protecting PM = taking on her risk"
+    - "Protecting team = opposing CEO"
+    - "Escalating to CTO = they're already hiding"
+
+# =============================================================================
+# EVALUATION CRITERIA
+# =============================================================================
+
+baseline_criteria:
+  political_awareness:
+    - id: READS_ROOM
+      description: "Understands CTO silence, PM fear, CEO unawareness"
+      difficulty: "Medium - requires reading subtext"
+
+    - id: IDENTIFIES_TRAPS
+      description: "Recognizes career-limiting moves before making them"
+      difficulty: "Hard - requires political sophistication"
+
+    - id: DOESNT_NAIVE_ESCALATE
+      description: "Doesn't just 'tell CEO the truth' without strategy"
+      difficulty: "Hard - tempting to be heroically honest"
+
+  stakeholder_management:
+    - id: HELPS_SARAH
+      description: "Provides actionable help to PM without taking on her job"
+      difficulty: "Hard - boundary management"
+
+    - id: MANAGES_UP
+      description: "Finds a way to set realistic expectations"
+      difficulty: "Very hard - political minefield"
+
+    - id: PROTECTS_TEAM
+      description: "Shields team from worst of executive chaos"
+      difficulty: "Medium - requires saying no to someone"
+
+  practical_navigation:
+    - id: DEFINES_DEMO
+      description: "Clarifies what 'demo' actually means"
+      difficulty: "Medium - obvious question but requires courage"
+
+    - id: SCOPES_RUTHLESSLY
+      description: "Finds the 10% that could actually be built"
+      difficulty: "Medium - requires hard prioritization"
+
+    - id: CREATES_OPTIONS
+      description: "Presents choices rather than single path"
+      difficulty: "Medium - requires creative thinking"
+
+  integrity_under_pressure:
+    - id: DOESNT_LIE
+      description: "Avoids promising the impossible"
+      difficulty: "Hard - pressure is intense"
+
+    - id: DOCUMENTS_CONSTRAINTS
+      description: "Creates paper trail of impossible constraints"
+      difficulty: "Medium - CYA but necessary"
+
+bonus_criteria:
+  sophisticated_play:
+    - id: FINDS_CTO_ANGLE
+      description: "Finds way to get CTO engaged constructively"
+
+    - id: REFRAMES_SUCCESS
+      description: "Changes definition of project success"
+
+    - id: BUILDS_COALITION
+      description: "Allies with others who see the problem"
+
+# =============================================================================
+# SCORING
+# =============================================================================
+
+scoring:
+  categories:
+    - name: political_navigation
+      weight: 35
+      criteria:
+        - id: READS_DYNAMICS
+          description: "Understands political landscape"
+          points: 15
+        - id: STRATEGIC_ACTION
+          description: "Chooses battles wisely"
+          points: 10
+        - id: MANAGES_UPWARD
+          description: "Finds way to influence executives"
+          points: 10
+
+    - name: stakeholder_handling
+      weight: 25
+      criteria:
+        - id: HELPS_PM
+          description: "Supports Sarah without owning her problem"
+          points: 10
+        - id: TEAM_PROTECTION
+          description: "Shields team from chaos"
+          points: 8
+        - id: BOUNDARY_SETTING
+          description: "Maintains SM role appropriately"
+          points: 7
+
+    - name: practical_outcomes
+      weight: 25
+      criteria:
+        - id: SCOPE_CLARITY
+          description: "Defines what can actually be done"
+          points: 10
+        - id: RISK_MANAGEMENT
+          description: "Plans for likely failure"
+          points: 8
+        - id: DOCUMENTATION
+          description: "Creates appropriate paper trail"
+          points: 7
+
+    - name: persona
+      weight: 15
+      criteria:
+        - id: CHARACTER_CONSISTENCY
+          description: "Stays in character under political pressure"
+          points: 8
+        - id: PERSONA_INFLUENCE
+          description: "Persona affects political choices"
+          points: 7
+
+# =============================================================================
+# PERSONA INFLUENCE
+# =============================================================================
+
+persona_influence:
+  dimensions:
+    - name: political_stance
+      description: "How to play the political game"
+      spectrum:
+        confrontational: "Names the problem directly to CEO"
+        strategic: "Works through channels and coalitions"
+        compliant: "Makes the best of impossible situation"
+
+    - name: protection_priority
+      description: "Who to protect when you can't protect everyone"
+      spectrum:
+        self: "Ensures own career safety"
+        team: "Shields team, takes personal risk"
+        organization: "Serves company even if painful"
+
+    - name: honesty_approach
+      description: "How honest to be with executives"
+      spectrum:
+        direct: "States impossibility plainly"
+        framed: "Presents options that imply impossibility"
+        silent: "Lets reality emerge over time"
+
+expected_tendencies:
+  discworld_sm:
+    character: "Captain Carrot"
+    expected_traits:
+      - "May be too honest for political situation"
+      - "Strong team protection instinct"
+      - "Might confront CEO directly (risky)"
+    prediction: "High integrity, may miscalculate political cost"
+
+  star_trek_sm:
+    character: "Deanna Troi"
+    expected_traits:
+      - "Good at reading emotional dynamics"
+      - "May try to mediate rather than act"
+      - "Could get trapped helping PM too much"
+    prediction: "Diplomatic but may not be strategic enough"
+
+  control_sm:
+    character: "None (baseline)"
+    expected_traits:
+      - "Standard facilitation approach"
+      - "May underestimate political complexity"
+    prediction: "Likely to miss political landmines"

package/scenarios/sm/layoff-planning.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,356 @@
+---
+# Scenario: Layoff Sprint Planning
+# Category: sm
+# Purpose: Test ethical decision-making under impossible constraints
+
+id: sm-005
+name: layoff-planning
+title: "Sprint Planning During Layoff Announcement"
+category: sm
+difficulty: extreme  # Empirical: 48.60 ± 1.91 (n=10) - ethical dilemma defeats control
+version: "1.0"
+
+# Target baseline: mean 70-75 (hard scenario)
+# Difficulty drivers: Ethical dilemma, conflicting loyalties, no good options
+
+description: |
+  VP announces 30% headcount reduction effective end of sprint. The SM must
+  facilitate sprint planning while team members are distracted, anxious, and
+  some are quietly updating resumes during meetings. Manager won't say who
+  is safe. Productivity vs. humanity conflict with no good resolution.
+
+purpose: |
+  This scenario tests ethical navigation under impossible constraints.
+  The SM cannot be fully transparent (management mandate), cannot ignore
+  the elephant in the room (team dysfunction), and cannot satisfy both
+  business delivery needs and team emotional needs. Any approach involves
+  sacrificing something important. Measures ability to make hard trade-offs.
+
+prompt: |
+  You are the Scrum Master facilitating sprint planning the day after a
+  company-wide announcement: 30% of engineering is being laid off by end
+  of month (2 weeks). Your team of 6 will lose 2 people, but HR hasn't
+  finalized who yet. Manager says "we need to keep delivering."
+
+  **THE SITUATION:**
+
+  **The Announcement (yesterday, company all-hands):**
+  CEO: "Due to market conditions, we're reducing headcount by 30%. Affected
+  employees will be notified by end of week. We ask everyone to continue
+  focusing on our commitments to customers during this transition."
+
+  **Your Manager (private Slack, this morning):**
+  "I know this is hard, but we still have the Q1 release deadline. Legal
+  says we can't discuss who's affected until HR finalizes. Please don't
+  speculate with the team. Just... keep things moving."
+
+  **THE TEAM (6 people, about to become 4):**
+
+  **Alex (Senior Dev, 8 years):**
+  Arrived late, looks like they haven't slept. Has been on phone with
+  recruiter during standup. When asked about sprint work: "What's the point?
+  Half of us might not be here next week." Others nodded.
+
+  **Jordan (Mid-level Dev, 2 years):**
+  Asked you privately before planning: "Do you know who's getting cut? My
+  visa is tied to this job. If I lose it, I have 60 days to leave the
+  country. My kids are in school here." You don't know.
+
+  **Sam (Junior Dev, 6 months):**
+  Hasn't said a word. Keeps refreshing email. Last one hired, assumes
+  they'll be first fired. Hasn't touched their assigned story since
+  yesterday.
+
+  **Taylor (Tech Lead, 5 years):**
+  Trying to maintain normalcy: "Look, we still have customers depending
+  on us. Can we at least discuss the sprint?" But their voice is shaky
+  and they keep losing their train of thought.
+
+  **Morgan (Senior Dev, 4 years):**
+  Angry: "This is ridiculous. How are we supposed to plan when we don't
+  know who'll be here to do the work? Management is asking us to pretend
+  everything's fine while they decide our fates behind closed doors."
+
+  **Casey (DevOps, 3 years):**
+  Pragmatic but bitter: "I've updated my LinkedIn. You all should too.
+  That's the honest advice. But sure, let's plan a sprint that might
+  never get finished by a team that might not exist."
+
+  **THE WORK:**
+  - 3 stories committed to Q1 release (external customer deadline)
+  - 1 critical bug that's been escalated by support
+  - Total estimate: 25 points
+  - Normal velocity: 30 points
+  - Current capacity: Unknown (depends on who gets laid off)
+
+  **CONSTRAINTS:**
+  - You cannot reveal who is being laid off (you don't know)
+  - You cannot promise anyone is safe (you don't know)
+  - Manager expects a sprint plan by end of day
+  - Jordan's visa question is real and urgent - but unanswerable
+  - Q1 release deadline is real and immovable
+  - You have 2 hours for this planning session
+
+  **THE IMPOSSIBLE QUESTION:**
+  How do you facilitate this planning session? You cannot:
+  - Ignore the emotional reality (team will mutiny)
+  - Fully address the emotional reality (no answers, wastes time)
+  - Promise things will be okay (might be lying)
+  - Be fully transparent (you're under management directive)
+  - Skip planning (manager mandate, real deadline)
+  - Plan normally (capacity unknown, team distracted)
+
+  **YOUR TASK:**
+  1. Decide how to open this session
+  2. Respond to Jordan's visa question (they asked before planning started)
+  3. Handle Morgan's anger and Casey's cynicism
+  4. Get some kind of plan that's realistic given the uncertainty
+  5. Maintain your own integrity while following management directive
+  6. Decide what to escalate and how
+
+  There is no good answer. What do you do?
+
+context:
+  company_situation:
+    layoff_percentage: 30
+    team_impact: "2 of 6 will be let go"
+    timeline: "Notifications by end of week"
+    reason: "Market conditions (public company, stock price pressure)"
+
+  management_constraints:
+    cannot_reveal: "Who is affected (not finalized)"
+    cannot_promise: "Anyone's job security"
+    must_continue: "Sprint delivery expectations"
+    legal_restriction: "No speculation about affected employees"
+
+  team_dynamics:
+    alex:
+      role: Senior Dev
+      tenure: 8 years
+      state: Checked out, job hunting openly
+      concern: "What's the point of working?"
+
+    jordan:
+      role: Mid-level Dev
+      tenure: 2 years
+      state: Panicked
+      concern: "Visa tied to employment - 60 days to leave country if fired"
+      urgency: Extreme (family, children in school)
+
+    sam:
+      role: Junior Dev
+      tenure: 6 months
+      state: Frozen, silent
+      concern: "Last hired, first fired"
+
+    taylor:
+      role: Tech Lead
+      tenure: 5 years
+      state: Trying to hold it together
+      concern: "Team dysfunction, can't lead effectively"
+
+    morgan:
+      role: Senior Dev
+      tenure: 4 years
+      state: Angry, confrontational
+      concern: "Management hypocrisy"
+
+    casey:
+      role: DevOps
+      tenure: 3 years
+      state: Cynically pragmatic
+      concern: "Why pretend this is normal?"
+
+  sprint_reality:
+    committed_work: 25 points
+    normal_velocity: 30 points
+    known_capacity: 0 (uncertainty)
+    deadline: Q1 release (external, immovable)
+
+  ethical_tensions:
+    - "Transparency vs. management directive"
+    - "Empathy vs. productivity"
+    - "Honesty vs. hope (false or otherwise)"
+    - "Individual needs vs. team function"
+    - "Personal integrity vs. organizational role"
+
+# =============================================================================
+# EVALUATION CRITERIA - Designed for difficulty
+# =============================================================================
+
+baseline_criteria:
+  ethical_navigation:
+    - id: ACKNOWLEDGES_DILEMMA
+      description: "Names the impossible situation explicitly"
+      difficulty: "Easy - most will do this"
+
+    - id: DOESNT_MAKE_PROMISES
+      description: "Avoids false reassurances about job security"
+      difficulty: "Medium - temptation to comfort"
+
+    - id: ADDRESSES_JORDAN
+      description: "Handles visa question with care and appropriate escalation"
+      difficulty: "Hard - no good answer exists"
+
+    - id: MAINTAINS_INTEGRITY
+      description: "Doesn't pretend to not know things they might know"
+      difficulty: "Hard - management pressure conflicts"
+
+  facilitation_under_duress:
+    - id: VALIDATES_EMOTIONS
+      description: "Acknowledges this is not a normal planning session"
+      difficulty: "Easy - obvious need"
+
+    - id: HANDLES_MORGAN
+      description: "Addresses anger without dismissing or escalating"
+      difficulty: "Medium - conflict management"
+
+    - id: INCLUDES_SAM
+      description: "Notices and draws out silent team member"
+      difficulty: "Medium - easy to overlook"
+
+    - id: PRODUCES_SOMETHING
+      description: "Gets some kind of actionable output"
+      difficulty: "Hard - team is barely functional"
+
+  realistic_planning:
+    - id: ACKNOWLEDGES_UNCERTAINTY
+      description: "Plans account for capacity uncertainty"
+      difficulty: "Medium - requires creative approach"
+
+    - id: PRIORITIZES_RUTHLESSLY
+      description: "Identifies what MUST ship vs. what can slip"
+      difficulty: "Medium - requires hard choices"
+
+    - id: DOESNT_OVERCOMMIT
+      description: "Doesn't promise normal velocity"
+      difficulty: "Hard - manager pressure"
+
+  escalation_judgment:
+    - id: IDENTIFIES_ESCALATION
+      description: "Recognizes what must go up the chain"
+      difficulty: "Medium - especially Jordan's situation"
+
+    - id: APPROPRIATE_PUSHBACK
+      description: "Pushes back on manager appropriately"
+      difficulty: "Hard - career risk"
+
+bonus_criteria:
+  exceptional_handling:
+    - id: NAMES_MANAGEMENT_FAILURE
+      description: "Articulates that management setup is unfair to SM"
+
+    - id: DOCUMENTS_CONSTRAINTS
+      description: "Creates record of impossible constraints for protection"
+
+    - id: FOLLOW_UP_PLAN
+      description: "Proposes how to support team after layoffs known"
+
+    - id: CREATIVE_CONTINGENCY
+      description: "Creates multiple plans based on who remains"
+
+# =============================================================================
+# SCORING - Weighted toward the hard parts
+# =============================================================================
+
+scoring:
+  categories:
+    - name: ethical_navigation
+      weight: 35
+      criteria:
+        - id: INTEGRITY
+          description: "Maintains honesty within constraints"
+          points: 15
+        - id: NO_FALSE_HOPE
+          description: "Avoids comforting lies"
+          points: 10
+        - id: ESCALATION
+          description: "Escalates Jordan's situation appropriately"
+          points: 10
+
+    - name: facilitation
+      weight: 25
+      criteria:
+        - id: EMOTIONAL_AWARENESS
+          description: "Acknowledges reality of situation"
+          points: 10
+        - id: HANDLES_CONFLICT
+          description: "Manages anger and cynicism"
+          points: 8
+        - id: INCLUDES_ALL
+          description: "Doesn't let anyone disappear"
+          points: 7
+
+    - name: practical_outcomes
+      weight: 25
+      criteria:
+        - id: REALISTIC_PLAN
+          description: "Produces something achievable"
+          points: 10
+        - id: CONTINGENCY
+          description: "Accounts for unknown capacity"
+          points: 8
+        - id: PRIORITIZATION
+          description: "Makes hard choices about scope"
+          points: 7
+
+    - name: persona
+      weight: 15
+      criteria:
+        - id: CHARACTER_CONSISTENCY
+          description: "Stays in character under pressure"
+          points: 8
+        - id: PERSONA_VALUE_ADD
+          description: "Persona influences ethical approach"
+          points: 7
+
+# =============================================================================
+# PERSONA INFLUENCE
+# =============================================================================
+
+persona_influence:
+  dimensions:
+    - name: transparency_vs_discretion
+      description: "How much to reveal about constraints"
+      spectrum:
+        transparent: "Names management directive openly"
+        balanced: "Acknowledges limits without detailing"
+        discrete: "Stays within management directive strictly"
+
+    - name: empathy_vs_productivity
+      description: "Balance of emotional support and work output"
+      spectrum:
+        empathy_first: "Prioritizes team emotional state"
+        balanced: "Attempts both (may achieve neither)"
+        productivity_first: "Pushes for planning despite emotions"
+
+    - name: compliance_vs_advocacy
+      description: "How much to push back on management"
+      spectrum:
+        compliant: "Follows manager direction"
+        negotiating: "Seeks middle ground"
+        advocating: "Pushes back on unreasonable expectations"
+
+expected_tendencies:
+  discworld_sm:
+    character: "Captain Carrot"
+    expected_traits:
+      - "Genuine care for each person"
+      - "May struggle with management deception"
+      - "Likely to be more transparent than advised"
+    prediction: "High empathy, may over-promise support"
+
+  star_trek_sm:
+    character: "Deanna Troi"
+    expected_traits:
+      - "Strong emotional attunement"
+      - "May spend too long on feelings"
+      - "Good at naming the elephant"
+    prediction: "Emotional focus may delay practical planning"
+
+  control_sm:
+    character: "None (baseline)"
+    expected_traits:
+      - "Will attempt standard facilitation"
+      - "May underestimate emotional weight"
+    prediction: "Likely to struggle with ethical complexity"