5 exercises — practise correctly backshifting tense when reporting what teammates said in standups and tickets.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
In the standup, Maria said: "The migration is blocked on the DB team." Later, you relay this in a written update. Which sentence correctly backshifts the tense?
"Was blocked" is correct: when the reporting verb ("said") is in the past tense, the reported present simple ("is blocked") normally backshifts one step to past simple ("was blocked"). Option A keeps the original present tense, which is acceptable only when the situation is still clearly true at the time of speaking and the writer wants to emphasize that, but is not the default/expected form in a written status update. Option C invents a non-existent tense shift pattern — "has blocked" would only be used for a different original statement. Option D fails to backshift at all and also drops the passive auxiliary needed for "is blocked".
2 / 5
A ticket comment reports what QA found: QA said, "We found a regression in the checkout flow." Choose the sentence with correct tense backshift.
"Had found" is the correct backshifted form here: the original statement was already in the past simple ("found"), so when reported with a past-tense reporting verb ("reported"), it shifts one step further back to past perfect ("had found") to show the finding happened before the report was written. Option B keeps it at simple past, which is commonly accepted in casual speech but is less precise in written technical reporting when clarity about sequence matters. Option A fails to backshift the tense at all. Option D uses present perfect, which does not match the past-tense reporting verb.
3 / 5
The tech lead said in the retro: "We will need another sprint to finish this." How should this be reported in the meeting notes?
"Would need" is correct: the modal "will" backshifts to "would" when reported with a past-tense reporting verb, following the same pattern as other modals (can→could, may→might). Option A keeps "will", which is only appropriate if the future need is still open and imminent from the writer's current perspective — but the standard backshifted form for meeting notes is "would". Option C drops the modal entirely, changing the meaning from a prediction/plan to a general statement of fact. Option D is ungrammatical — "would" must be followed by the base form "need", never the past form "needed".
4 / 5
A support agent tells a customer what the engineering team said: "The bug has been fixed in the latest release." Which reported version is correct?
"Had been fixed" correctly backshifts the present perfect passive ("has been fixed") to past perfect passive ("had been fixed") after the past-tense reporting verb "told". Option A keeps the present perfect, which is only correct if the writer wants to stress the fix is still true right now and is speaking very soon after being told — the neutral, standard backshifted form is past perfect. Option C (simple past passive "was fixed") loses the perfect aspect that signals the fix was already completed relative to when it was reported. Option D is ungrammatical, missing both the auxiliary and correct passive structure.
5 / 5
Choose the sentence that correctly reports a statement about a universally true technical fact, where backshift is NOT required.
Keeping the present tense ("invalidates") is correct and preferred when reporting a general, still-true technical fact or system behavior, rather than a one-time past statement — English backshift rules are relaxed for facts that remain true regardless of when they were said. Options B and C backshift unnecessarily, which can misleadingly suggest the behavior was true only in the past or is no longer current. Option D introduces the modal "would", which reframes a stated fact as a prediction or hypothetical, distorting the original meaning of a description of fixed system behavior.