This backlog grooming agenda template turns fictional B01 into a proposed exact-title slice, B01a. A 30-minute agenda links the candidate to one example and two open questions. Scope and question controls produce a focused handoff while keeping size, order, owners, and actual acceptance unconfirmed.
Start with one example, not every search feature
B01 says Improve search. B01a proposes finding a document by its exact title under the confirmed existing access rules. The one-record example contains an authorized document titled Supply notes, returned once. That is a bounded example, not a specification for every title match in the actual product.
B01b keeps filters and tag search as a separate later idea. Do not quietly add partial text search, filter design, or permission changes to the exact-title slice. Record the original request beside the candidate so a reviewer can see what became narrower and which ideas stayed outside it.
Keep two decisions visible
Q01 asks whether capitalization affects matching. Q02 asks how multiple authorized records with the same title should appear. Neither answer is supplied. Finding the one declared record once does not decide case folding or deduplication among distinct records.
Choose Q01 or Q02 in the reading view. The B01a question panel updates, while its owner and answer remain To confirm; this does not change the separate working record. Choose B01b to inspect the excluded filter idea, then return to B01a. These controls organize the discussion; they do not mutate a backlog or mark a question resolved. Unknown size is not zero effort.
Use 30 minutes to improve the record
Allow 5 minutes to confirm the problem context, 10 to narrow scope and inspect the example, 10 to separate later work and open questions, and 5 to capture owners and next checks. The sum is 5 + 10 + 10 + 5 = 30 minutes. Treat this as a local working budget that the team can adapt.
Scrum.org describes refinement as an ongoing activity rather than a prescribed Scrum event. A completed agenda therefore does not establish a required ceremony or a Sprint decision. Capture what the actual participants agree, including any smaller experiment that they choose to answer a question. Do not declare that every unknown always blocks all possible work.
Write a close another person can use
A useful handoff reads: B01a is a proposed exact-title slice; Supply notes is the one-record example; capitalization and duplicate-title behavior remain open; B01b filters/tag search is separate. Add actual owners and next-check dates only when supplied. Keep the current access-rule reference with the candidate rather than designing new permissions in the agenda.
The reusable record needs request, problem, example, scope, boundary, assumptions, unanswered questions, responsible person, next check, revision, and actual decision. Clarification does not equal Sprint selection. Avoid Ready, Selected, or Done unless the team's actual record supports that status. Keep sizing, ordering, and delivery decisions in the maintained backlog. The reading companion creates no story points, acceptance, Definition of Ready gate, or change to the Definition of Done. Its result is a clearer place to resume discussion, with the important blanks preserved.
Copy this prompt to adapt the example
Design a refinement meeting sheet with a timed agenda, contrasting scope proposals, and an editable revision and next-check record. Return one self-contained HTML file with embedded styling and working interactions. Use readable type, strong contrast, clearly labeled keyboard controls, and a layout that flows on a narrow phone. Identify the supplied data as a fictional example.
Create a fictional 30-minute backlog refinement working view. Agenda: context 5 minutes, scope/example 10, split/questions 10, owners/next check 5. State that this timing is a local choice, not a required Scrum event. B01 is Improve search. Candidate B01a finds a document by exact title under confirmed existing access rules. One authorized record titled Supply notes appears once in the supplied one-record example. B01b filters/tag search stays separate and outside B01a.
Provide scope buttons for B01a and B01b with different descriptions and boundaries. Provide question buttons Q01 capitalization and Q02 duplicate-title behavior. Scope buttons update the working source and suggested next check and invalidate the working draft. Q01/Q02 independently inspect B01a questions without changing the working source, next-check field, or draft. Keep answers, owners, dates, size, order, access-rule reference, and actual decision unconfirmed. A combined close should retain both open questions and separate future scope. Include reusable revision/assumption fields as a reading outline. Do not invent case folding, deduplication, story points, mandatory readiness gates, acceptance, Sprint selection, or completion. No backlog writes, notifications, saved control choices, or meeting-outcome claims.
Leave the working session with the unresolved behavior stated plainly. Does an exact-title search return both documents when titles match? NOS can render the HTML comparison of the original request, proposed slice, and open question for that conversation. Add the team's answer to the item revision, then return to scope and ordering with a clearer example of the behavior being discussed.