Forecasting conversations without sandbagging theater

New teams lack stable history, so forecasting defaults to gut feel wrapped in spreadsheet precision. We teach planning labs to separate 'unknown-unknown' spikes from genuine scope, using dependency radars instead of fake precision.

One language swap we like: replace 'confidence percentage' with 'evidence list'—what proof exists that this item is ready? If the list is short, the forecast should say so.

Another habit: time-box debate. After ten minutes without new information, pick a small experiment for the sprint instead of arguing the same points.

These moves come straight from Sprint Planning Lab cohorts in Brazil, where cross-team dependencies are common and historical data is patchy.