Align the description of the scrum master role and the description of the retrospective
When reading the description of the SM role, the SM is responsible for causing change to improve the productivity of the team. However when reading the english description of the retrospective, there's a broken sentence that can be read as if the scrum team is accountable for the process. Having the SM responsible for causing change to the process, while the scrum team is accountable for the process itself seems to create unwanted tension. If the SM is responsible for causing the change, why shouldn't the SM be accountable for the process?