There is a lot of variance around Scrum. How it is interpreted, implemented, and to which extent it is used... and results. Yet, everyone claims to be doing it

There is a lot of variance around Scrum. How it is interpreted, implemented, and to which extent it is used... and results. Yet, everyone claims to be doing it correctly. And when the success of a process is statistically not any different than random chance, then I start having skepticism about it. I think Scrum oversimplifies software engineering and reduces performance into a single metric: velocity. Do you have 3x more velocity but create 500x more bugs than the rest of the team? This is the same as saying you are trashing a project... but instead, let's promote you, because we care about velocity and rarely keep track of issues attributed to a change. Software engineering is a serious discipline, stop trying to oversimplify everything into color post-its and velocity. The only one benefiting from that is 3M and unethical people. Instead, track the backlog size, and see how many tasks were created due to a defect in another task. Trading problems is not the same as fixing problems. Tech debt implementors trade problems, they don't fix them... This cripples projects while looking excellent in the burn down chart. Otherwise, audit code bases. Send someone with strong technical skills and attention to detail to ensure quality and report on the team, and use that as input for rewards, rather than just velocity.