I’d frame this more about team performance than about tracking work.
We assume that any changes in scope are for the better — they are the result of learning what works better in reality, given the appetite. From that POV, we don’t care about the gap.
However, that assumes leadership is happy with what gets shipped. If the work that ships is for some reason not satisfying, then there are two paths to investigate:
- Did something go wrong with the team’s decision making and/or execution?
- Was there a problem from the beginning in the shaped work?
I’d view this more as a debriefing matter, and something we only do when a problem comes to our attention, rather than some standard procedure.
Of course, some review in the course of cycle mitigates this. Good times for review are (a) if/when some work is stuck uphill or (b) after a couple meaningful scopes have rounded the hill.