No one will get far trying to have a debate here. Agile is both poorly and conflictingly well-defined and its adherents seem to lean on "no true Scotsman" defen

No one will get far trying to have a debate here. Agile is both poorly and conflictingly well-defined and its adherents seem to lean on "no true Scotsman" defences when given an example of massive inefficiencies an organization that claims to do it. Whatever you are doing is "agile" if you are performing well and not if you aren't. Also the idea of some pure waterfall is nearly as much of a strawman as the ethereal agile. Measuring performance is also quite difficult. Is it meeting internal or external deadlines? Providing consistent and accurate estimates of time and effort? Providing software of sufficient quality regardless of those measures? Do what works for your team. Make changes if it isn't working.