{
  "title": "Team planning cadence survey",
  "questions": [
    "Which plan became outdated first?",
    "What information arrived between planning sessions?",
    "What cadence would support your work?"
  ],
  "question_notes": [
    "The plan that became outdated first identifies where current planning intervals fail to accommodate changing information. Preserve the dependency and timing context.",
    "Information arriving between sessions reveals decisions the current planning rhythm does not accommodate. Agree an appropriate update or review trigger, without assuming more frequent meetings automatically improve coordination or delivery.",
    "A preferred cadence identifies the review rhythm a task needs. Compare it with dependency decisions and available update routes instead of assuming more meetings improve delivery."
  ],
  "answer_guidance": [
    {
      "question": 1,
      "format": "Optional short text",
      "reason": "Retain the specific point or condition described; avoid replacing it with an unexplained rating."
    },
    {
      "question": 2,
      "format": "Optional written explanation",
      "reason": "Keep context that distinguishes different experiences. More frequent meetings are not always better."
    },
    {
      "question": 3,
      "format": "Optional improvement suggestion",
      "reason": "Keep the suggested change separate from whether it has been tested. Align planning with dependency decisions."
    }
  ],
  "respondent_instruction": "If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.",
  "note": "Examples to adapt. Not a validated instrument."
}