Three formal Change Requests were raised on this program — all affecting a baselined commitment (budget or schedule), which is why they went through this formal path rather than ordinary backlog reprioritization (see Change Handling in Agile for where that line sits). All three were approved and implemented.
A. Singh flagged that load-testing the video visit infrastructure against a production-realistic patient volume required a dedicated staging environment separate from the shared dev/test environment already in use — running load tests there risked disrupting both teams' daily work. Requested and approved as a one-time infrastructure cost ahead of Release 1 hardening (Sprint 5).
Ahead of Sprint 7's full historical record migration, early data-quality spot-checks on the legacy archive surfaced more inconsistent field mappings than the original migration pipeline (built in Sprint 1) was designed to handle automatically. Rather than risk the Sprint 8 cutover date, Anchor requested two short-term contractors for Sprint 7 only to build additional remediation scripts. This is the change referenced as risk R-04 in the RAIDD Log and the Sprint 6 Status Report's Amber budget rating.
The full historical migration's larger-than-planned remediation effort (see CR-02) meant Compliance needed more than the originally planned 2 business days to validate the archive before Release 2 cutover. The Sprint 8 sprint boundary and May 8 go-live date did not move — instead, the final regression-testing window inside Sprint 8 was compressed from 4 days to 1 day to make room. This trade-off was explicitly accepted (not silently absorbed) and logged as an accepted residual risk rather than a schedule slip.
Backlog reprioritization within approved scope: Product Owner decides directly, no CR needed. Anything affecting the cost baseline, the release date, or a compliance-relevant timeline: Sponsor approval required (and Compliance co-approval when the change touches a PHI/patient-safety review, as in CR-03). This program never required a full Steering Committee vote for a CR — appropriate to its size, compared to the Enrollment & Claims program's heavier approval chain for its $7M baseline.