The Release Planning Workshop is the forum where planning for the next stage occurs in PRINCE2 Agile. This workshop brings together the project management team and delivery teams to plan the scope, schedule, and resources for the upcoming release or stage. It helps align business priorities with delivery capacity and supports incremental and iterative delivery approaches.

The Team Planning Workshop focuses on more detailed planning at the team level within the release, the Team Retrospective Workshop is dedicated to reflecting on performance and improving processes, and the Progress Review Workshop is for reviewing progress against the plan rather than planning future work.

The principle that establishes governance by delegating responsibilities and setting tolerances is manage by exception, making option C the correct answer. Agile Foundation guidance, aligned with PRINCE2 and PRINCE2 Agile principles, explains that effective governance does not require constant oversight or micromanagement. Instead, it relies on clearly defined roles, delegated authority, and agreed tolerances within which teams are empowered to operate.

Manage by exception works by setting measurable tolerances for key aspects such as time, cost, scope, quality, risk, and benefits. As long as work remains within these agreed limits, the team or delivery level can proceed independently without escalation. This creates clarity around accountability while allowing teams the autonomy needed to work efficiently and respond to change—an essential aspect of Agile delivery. Escalation only occurs when forecasts indicate that tolerances will be exceeded, ensuring that senior management attention is focused where it adds the most value.

Option A, ensure continued business justification, focuses on confirming that the project remains viable and worthwhile, but it does not define how governance is enacted day to day. Option B, tailor to suit the project, emphasizes adapting methods and controls to the project context rather than establishing governance through delegation. Option D, focus on products, ensures clarity around outputs and acceptance criteria but does not address governance or escalation mechanisms.

Agile Foundation documents highlight that manage by exception supports agility by balancing control with empowerment. Teams gain the freedom to self-manage and deliver iteratively, while leadership retains confidence that risks are controlled and objectives are protected. This principle reduces unnecessary reporting, speeds up decision-making, and supports trust between governance levels. By clearly delegating responsibilities and defining tolerances, manage by exception provides a practical and effective governance model compatible with Agile ways of working.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the risk practice is concerned with identifying, assessing, and managing uncertainty in a structured and proactive way. One of the specific ways this practice is applied in Agile and PRINCE2 Agile contexts is by identifying Agile adoption risks using the Agilometer, making option A the correct answer.

The Agilometer is a diagnostic tool designed to assess how suitable Agile approaches are for a particular project or environment. It examines factors such as organizational culture, stakeholder engagement, governance requirements, team capability, and delivery constraints. By highlighting areas of risk related to Agile adoption, the Agilometer enables teams and leaders to make informed decisions about how Agile should be tailored and what mitigations are needed. This aligns directly with the purpose of the risk practice, which is to reduce uncertainty and protect value.

Option B, trading to handle emerging changes, relates to scope and prioritization flexibility rather than risk management itself. While trading can reduce risk indirectly by controlling scope, it is not a primary application of the risk practice. Option C, using an objectives and key results framework, focuses on goal-setting and performance measurement, not risk identification or assessment. Option D, identifying criteria in the Definition of Done, supports quality management rather than risk management.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile does not eliminate risk; instead, it makes risk visible and manageable through early feedback, incremental delivery, and structured assessment. The risk practice ensures that uncertainties are understood and addressed continuously throughout the lifecycle. By using tools such as the Agilometer, organizations can anticipate challenges in Agile adoption and take proactive steps to manage them. This supports effective governance while preserving Agile’s flexibility, ensuring that Agile is applied in a way that is both realistic and sustainable.

Agile Foundation guidance explains that the release planning workshop is the forum where personas and evolving user needs are revisited and refined, making option C the correct answer. Release planning focuses on aligning upcoming work with user value, business priorities, and learning gained from previous deliveries. As Agile delivery is iterative and incremental, understanding users is not a one-off activity but an ongoing process that evolves as feedback is gathered.

During a release planning workshop, teams review insights from recent increments, stakeholder feedback, and real user behavior. Personas—representations of key user types—are revisited to confirm whether assumptions remain valid or need adjustment. As products evolve, new needs may emerge, priorities may shift, and earlier hypotheses about users may prove incomplete. Release planning provides the structured opportunity to incorporate this learning and refine the understanding of who the users are and what they need most next.

Option A, the team retrospective workshop, focuses on improving the team’s ways of working rather than reviewing user needs or personas. Option B, the project kickoff workshop, is typically held at the start of the initiative to establish initial vision, scope, and understanding, but it does not revisit evolving needs. Option D, the agile enablement workshop, concentrates on assessing and planning for risks associated with Agile adoption, not on refining user personas.

Agile Foundation documents emphasize that Agile success depends on continuous alignment with customer and user value. Release planning workshops support this by ensuring that upcoming work reflects the latest understanding of user needs rather than outdated assumptions. By regularly revisiting personas during release planning, teams strengthen customer focus, reduce waste, and improve the likelihood that delivered increments will meet real user expectations. This approach reinforces Agile principles of feedback, learning, and value-driven delivery.

Agile Foundation guidance clearly identifies Scrum as an iterative and timeboxed approach to product delivery, making option A the correct answer. Scrum is built around fixed-length iterations called sprints, which are typically one to four weeks long. These timeboxes create a regular cadence for planning, development, review, and improvement, enabling teams to deliver usable increments of a product frequently and predictably.

Scrum emphasizes iterative delivery by breaking complex work into smaller, manageable pieces that can be completed within a sprint. Each sprint begins with planning, where the team selects work from the product backlog, and ends with a review and retrospective. This structure supports frequent inspection of both the product and the team’s way of working, allowing for continuous adaptation based on feedback and learning. Agile Foundation documents highlight that timeboxing is a key mechanism in Scrum, helping teams focus, limit work in progress, and reduce risk.

Option B, Kanban, is not timeboxed. Kanban focuses on continuous flow, visualizing work, and limiting work in progress rather than delivering in fixed iterations. Option C, the Agilometer, is an assessment tool used to evaluate suitability and risks of Agile adoption, not a delivery approach. Option D, Lean, is a broader philosophy focused on eliminating waste and optimizing value flow; while it can influence Agile delivery, it is not inherently iterative and timeboxed in the way Scrum is.

Agile Foundation materials stress that Scrum’s iterative and timeboxed nature supports transparency, predictability, and early value delivery. By delivering small increments regularly, teams can gather feedback early, reduce uncertainty, and adapt priorities as needs change. This makes Scrum particularly effective in environments where requirements evolve and learning is essential.