---
title: "Iterate Retrospective: Storevine Campaigns"
description: "Storevine B2B ecommerce platform - Campaigns v1.0 build sprint retrospective."
artifact: retrospective
version: "1.0"
repo_version: "2.5.0"
skill_version: "2.0.0"
created: 2026-02-20
status: sample
thread: storevine
context: Storevine B2B ecommerce platform . Campaigns v1.0 build sprint retrospective
---
<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

## Scenario

Nine days after Campaigns GA (April 28, 2026), Storevine's growth PM facilitated the post-launch sprint retrospective covering the 13-week Campaigns build sprint and the GA week. The retro used a Start/Stop/Continue format and surfaced two recurring themes: the late Legal review start, which created a two-week compliance copy crunch that delayed marketing content finalization, and the underestimated complexity of DMARC/SPF/DKIM sender authentication setup, which nearly missed a hard launch gate. Three action items were committed, all with named owners and due dates before the next sprint.

**Source Notes:**

- Esther Derby and Diana Larsen, "Agile Retrospectives" (estherderby.com/agile-retrospectives) . the retrospective facilitation methodology; the Start/Stop/Continue format used in this retro is one of the structured formats described in this resource, suited for teams reviewing a completed project phase rather than a single sprint.
- CAN-SPAM Act (FTC, ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act-compliance-guide-business) . the compliance requirement that made Legal sign-off a hard launch gate; the retro action to start Legal reviews 6 weeks before GA directly addresses the crunch caused by the CAN-SPAM compliance review timeline.
- Google, "Email Sender Guidelines" (support.google.com/mail/answer/81126) . the 2024 enforcement of DKIM, SPF, and DMARC authentication for bulk senders; the DMARC setup delay discussed in the retrospective is attributable to underestimating DNS propagation requirements introduced by Google's enforcement of these guidelines.

---

## Prompt

```
/retrospective

Sprint: Campaigns v1.0 build sprint + GA week
Period: February 3  -  May 5, 2026 [fictional]
Date held: May 7, 2026
Format: Start / Stop / Continue
Duration: 90 minutes [fictional]

Team: Growth PM, Engineering Lead, Backend Engineer,
      Design Lead, Merchant Success Lead, QA Lead

What went well:
- Beta merchant FAQ (23 questions → 10 FAQ + 15 canned responses)
  [fictional] . reduced GA-week ticket volume significantly
- Instrumentation spec process caught subscriber email PII gap
  before GA
- Feature flag rollout (10%→100%) worked; zero rollback events

What to improve:
- Legal review started 3 weeks before GA instead of 6 weeks;
  created compliance copy crunch that delayed marketing content
- DMARC/SPF/DKIM setup: estimated 1 day, took 5 business days
  [fictional]; DNS propagation not in the timeline
- Klaviyo partner notice email sent 2 days late (no clear owner)

Previous retro actions to review (Sprint 7 retro):
- Add QA Lead to kickoff sessions . Complete
- Define escalation path for blocker tickets . In Progress
- Document infrastructure prerequisites for launches . Not Started

Need: full sprint retrospective with action items.
```

---

## Output

# Retrospective: Campaigns v1.0 Build Sprint

## Overview

**Period Covered:** February 3  -  May 5, 2026 (13-week Campaigns build sprint and GA week) [fictional]
**Date Held:** May 7, 2026
**Facilitator:** Growth PM
**Duration:** 90 minutes [fictional]
**Format Used:** Start / Stop / Continue

### Attendees

- Growth PM
- Engineering Lead, Platform Squad
- Backend Engineer
- Design Lead
- Merchant Success Lead
- QA Lead

### Context

The Campaigns v1.0 build sprint closed with a clean GA on April 28, 2026, and a full GA week (April 28  -  May 5) with zero rollback events. This retrospective covers the 13-week build sprint, the pre-GA launch checklist execution, and the first 7 days of merchant activity . including the initial feature flag rollout (10% → 25% → 50% → 100% over 6 days [fictional]), the first merchant sends, and the GA-week Merchant Success ticket volume. The A/B test launched on GA day and is running; this retro does not cover experiment results (which will not be available for 60 days).

---

## Previous Retrospective Review

### Action Items from Last Retro

| Action | Owner | Status | Notes |
|--------|-------|--------|-------|
| Add QA Lead to feature kickoff sessions | Engineering Lead | Complete | QA Lead joined the Campaigns kickoff in January 2026; QA-identified edge cases were included in the sprint scope from week 1 |
| Define escalation path for blocker tickets before they become critical | Engineering Lead | In Progress | Escalation path defined and used effectively during the Campaigns build sprint (one blocker escalated to Head of Product in week 8 [fictional]); the process document has not been generalized to other squads |
| Document infrastructure prerequisites for future production launches | Engineering Lead | Not Started | Deprioritized during the Campaigns build sprint due to sprint velocity pressure; now a direct action item from this retro |

---

## What Went Well

### Team Highlights

- The beta merchant feedback program produced 23 support questions [fictional] that Merchant Success Lead converted into 10 FAQ entries and 15 canned responses before GA . when GA-week tickets arrived, the support team already had answers ready, and GA-week ticket volume was below the estimated range [fictional]
- The instrumentation spec review process caught a PII gap . subscriber email addresses were initially included as event properties in an early draft of `attribution_recorded` . before any instrumentation was shipped to staging; removing this before GA avoided a potential GDPR compliance incident
- The feature flag rollout from 10% to 100% across 6 days [fictional] worked as designed: send failure rate peaked at 0.8% [fictional] during the initial 10% ramp (well below the 2% alert threshold), and the rollout proceeded to 100% without any rollback events or on-call escalations

### Process Wins

- The dual PM + QA review on all compliance copy (CAN-SPAM required text, unsubscribe language, physical address fields) caught two instances of non-compliant copy in the pre-built template library before GA; fixing these post-launch would have required a product update and a retroactive merchant communication
- The incident response runbook . created by Engineering Lead in the final week before GA . was used on day 2 of GA week when a brief attribution webhook backlog occurred (410 unprocessed events [fictional]); the runbook guided the on-call engineer through the diagnosis and resolution in under 20 minutes without paging anyone above the on-call level

### Individual Shoutouts

- Backend Engineer for implementing the `unique_args` attribution chain in the SendGrid webhook integration; the spike in week 2 of the build sprint confirmed the technical approach, and the final GA implementation matched the spike design without significant rework
- Merchant Success Lead for converting 23 beta questions [fictional] into 10 FAQ articles and 15 canned responses and publishing all of them before GA day; this single pre-GA investment measurably reduced the support load in the first week

---

## What to Improve

### Challenges Faced

- Legal review started 3 weeks before GA instead of the intended 6 weeks; the CAN-SPAM compliance architecture sign-off was not received until April 14 [fictional], which was 14 days before GA and 2 weeks after marketing needed the compliance copy finalized for the blog post, email campaign, and in-app banner
- DMARC/SPF/DKIM setup took 5 business days instead of the 1 day estimated [fictional]; DNS propagation delays (24 - 72 hours per record, multiple records required) were discovered during implementation rather than during sprint planning, and the setup nearly missed its April 21 launch gate deadline
- The Klaviyo partner notice email . required 48 hours before the GA announcement . was sent on GA day itself (April 28 [fictional]) instead of April 26; the launch checklist item had no explicitly assigned owner, and it was picked up by Growth PM only after the GA announcement draft was already in review

### Process Pain Points

- Legal is currently engaged as a late-stage reviewer (when code is ready for review) rather than as an early-stage design partner; compliance requirements discovered at the end of development create multi-team dependency cascades when Legal's review takes longer than the estimated window
- Infrastructure prerequisites (DNS configuration, IP warm-up, SSL certificate validation, DMARC/SPF/DKIM) are represented as launch checklist items rather than as sprint stories; they have due dates but no sprint-board visibility, which makes them invisible to the velocity tracking that the team uses to surface timeline risk early

### Themes Identified

| Theme | Items | Votes |
|-------|-------|-------|
| Legal and compliance timing | Legal review start date, CAN-SPAM copy finalization dependency, Klaviyo notice ownership gap | 8 [fictional] |
| Infrastructure timeline estimation | DMARC/SPF/DKIM setup, IP warm-up scheduling, DNS propagation buffer | 5 [fictional] |
| Launch checklist ownership | Klaviyo partner notice, partner communication accountability, marketing content gate | 3 [fictional] |

---

## Discussion Notes

### Legal and Compliance Timing

**What was discussed:**
The team discussed why the Legal review started 3 weeks before GA instead of 6. The root cause was not that Legal was unavailable . Legal said they could have started earlier if asked . but that the PM kickoff template and sprint planning process do not flag compliance implications as a trigger for early Legal engagement. Legal receives a calendar invite for the compliance review when the feature is ready for review, not at the start of the design phase.

**Root cause identified:**
Legal review is not a sprint story and therefore has no sprint-board visibility. It is a launch checklist item with a due date. When Legal's review takes longer than estimated (which happened here due to a parallel compliance project taking Legal's time [fictional]), the downstream dependencies . compliance copy, marketing content, template library review . have no lead time to absorb the delay.

**Proposed solution:**
For any feature with compliance implications (user data collection, external communication, financial transactions), Legal joins the feature kickoff meeting and is assigned as a named reviewer on a sprint story that appears on the board at design freeze . not at code freeze. The compliance review story blocks the marketing content story in the sprint board, making the dependency visible.

---

### DMARC/SPF/DKIM Setup and Infrastructure Estimation

**What was discussed:**
The Platform Squad estimated DMARC/SPF/DKIM setup at 1 day [fictional] based on previous experience with shared sending infrastructure on the Storevine platform. Dedicated sending domain setup proved to be significantly more complex: it required creating multiple DNS records (SPF TXT record, DKIM CNAME records, DMARC TXT record), waiting 24 - 72 hours for each record type to propagate before verification, and then iterating when Google's authentication checker reported partial failures due to subdomain configuration. Total elapsed time was 5 business days [fictional], with setup beginning on April 14 and completing April 21 . the launch gate deadline.

**Root cause identified:**
This was the first time the Platform Squad had provisioned a dedicated sending domain. The team had experience with shared infrastructure but not with DNS-level configuration for email authentication. DNS propagation windows were not in the standard sprint estimation checklist, and there was no runbook to reference.

**Proposed solution:**
Engineering Lead will document a DMARC/SPF/DKIM setup runbook covering the full sequence: DNS record types and values, propagation verification steps (using `dig` and Google's MX Toolbox [fictional]), Gmail and Yahoo sender authentication validation, and expected timeline with a 5-business-day propagation buffer. Future launches involving a new sending domain will treat this setup as a sprint story with a 5-day estimate, not a checklist item with a 1-day estimate.

---

## Action Items

| Priority | Action | Owner | Due Date | Status |
|----------|--------|-------|----------|--------|
| 1 | Update PM kickoff template: add compliance implications flag; if flagged, Legal joins kickoff and compliance review becomes a sprint story at design freeze | Growth PM | June 1, 2026 [fictional] | Not Started |
| 2 | Create DMARC/SPF/DKIM setup runbook; add infrastructure prerequisites to sprint story tracking with 5-day DNS propagation buffer | Engineering Lead | May 20, 2026 [fictional] | Not Started |
| 3 | Assign explicit ownership for all partner notice emails in launch checklist at project kickoff; add "owner" column to the partner communications section | Growth PM | May 15, 2026 [fictional] | Not Started |

### Action Item Details

**Action 1: Legal joins feature kickoff for compliance-adjacent features**
- What: Growth PM updates the feature kickoff template to include a yes/no compliance implications question (user data collection, external communication, financial processing). If yes, Legal receives a kickoff calendar invite, and a named compliance review story is added to the sprint board with a dependency link to the marketing content story.
- Why: Legal review discovered late creates multi-team dependency cascades; earlier engagement eliminates the cascade by giving Legal sufficient lead time and making the dependency visible in sprint planning.
- Success criteria: Legal is present at the next feature kickoff that involves user data or communication features; a compliance review story appears on the sprint board at design freeze for that feature.

**Action 2: DMARC/SPF/DKIM runbook and infrastructure story estimation**
- What: Engineering Lead documents the full dedicated sending domain setup sequence in the team runbook; the standard launch checklist template is updated to represent DNS-level infrastructure setup as sprint stories with a 5-day estimate, not as single-line checklist items.
- Why: Infrastructure setup should not depend on tacit knowledge of the engineer who has done it before; the runbook protects future launches from the same estimation error.
- Success criteria: Runbook is reviewed by at least 2 Platform Squad engineers; the standard launch checklist template is updated before the next major launch.

---

## Parking Lot

- EU merchant GDPR consent data model: deferred from Campaigns v1.0 to v1.1; Legal review still in progress as of this retro . tracked as a blocker in Sprint 12 refinement.
- Klaviyo-to-Campaigns migration workflow: raised by Merchant Success Lead based on migrated merchant support tickets; deferred to v2.0 roadmap planning . not a GA-week urgent item, but flagged for the persevere/pivot evaluation.

---

## Metrics and Trends

### Team Health Indicators

| Indicator | This Retro | Last Retro | Trend |
|-----------|------------|------------|-------|
| Team morale (1 - 5) [fictional] | 4.2 | 3.8 | ↑ |
| Process satisfaction (1 - 5) [fictional] | 3.6 | 3.4 | ↑ |
| Collaboration (1 - 5) [fictional] | 4.5 | 4.1 | ↑ |

### Recurring Themes

- Legal/compliance timing has appeared in 3 consecutive sprint retrospectives [fictional] as a process pain point . this is the first retro in which a structural solution (kickoff attendance + sprint story) was agreed upon rather than a one-time workaround.

---

## Facilitator Notes

- Start/Stop/Continue format worked well for a team of 6 covering a 13-week sprint; theme dot-voting took 8 minutes [fictional] and produced a clear priority order without debate
- Consider using the 4Ls format (Liked, Learned, Lacked, Longed For) for the first post-experiment retrospective . the A/B test results will generate learning-specific reflections that the 4Ls format captures better than Start/Stop/Continue
- Retrospective energy was notably high given the clean GA; next retrospective may need more structured quiet reflection time if the post-launch momentum fades and the team moves into a longer sustaining mode

---

## Next Retrospective

**Scheduled:** June 4, 2026 [fictional] (after Sprint 9 closes)
**Focus areas:** First-send rate trend in first 30 days post-GA; any Merchant Success feedback themes from GA week that surface product gaps; progress on the three action items from this retro.

---

*Retrospective documented by Growth PM on May 7, 2026 [fictional].*
