Incident Postmortem
Review a software incident without blame using customer impact, a timestamped timeline, contributing factors, and verifiable follow-up actions.
Use this templatePreview
Incident Postmortem: [Incident title]
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Incident ID | [Reference] |
| Severity | [Level using your team’s definitions] |
| Status | Draft / In review / Final |
| Incident lead | [Name] |
| Review owner | [Name] |
| Start / end | [Timestamps with timezone] |
| Affected systems | [Services and regions] |
| Related links | [Incident channel, dashboards, tickets] |
Summary
[State what happened, the user-visible effect, how service was restored, and the current state. Separate verified facts from hypotheses.]
Customer and business impact
- Affected users or tenants: [Count or estimate, with source.]
- Affected operations: [Failed, delayed, or degraded workflows.]
- Duration: [Impact window, distinct from investigation duration.]
- Data impact: [Confirmed loss, corruption, exposure, or no evidence found; state remaining uncertainty.]
- Communication: [Who was notified, when, and where.]
Timeline
Use one timezone throughout: [UTC or named timezone].
| Time | Event or observation | Action and result | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Timestamp] | [First known impact] | [Action, if any] | [Logs or metrics] |
| [Timestamp] | [Detection or report] | [Triage started] | [Alert or ticket] |
| [Timestamp] | [Mitigation attempted] | [Observed result] | [Deployment or command record] |
| [Timestamp] | [Service restored] | [Recovery verified] | [Health checks] |
Detection and response
How we detected it: [Alert, support report, or manual observation.]
Detection gaps: [Why earlier signals did not lead to action.]
Response constraints: [Access, documentation, tooling, or coordination issues.]
Causes and contributing factors
| Factor | Supporting evidence | Role in the incident |
|---|---|---|
| [Trigger] | [Verified evidence] | [How impact began] |
| [System condition] | [Verified evidence] | [How impact spread or persisted] |
| [Process condition] | [Verified evidence] | [Why safeguards did not catch it] |
Unresolved hypotheses: [What remains unknown and how it will be investigated.]
Recovery and validation
[Describe the mitigation, why it worked, how recovery was verified, and any temporary measures still in place.]
What worked and what needs improvement
- Worked well: [Effective safeguard or response practice.]
- Needs improvement: [Specific system or process gap.]
Follow-up actions
| ID | Action | Type | Owner | Due date | Verification | Tracking link |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A-01 | [Reduce likelihood of recurrence] | Prevention | [Name] | [Date] | [Test or observable outcome] | [Issue] |
| A-02 | [Improve detection or recovery] | Detection / mitigation | [Name] | [Date] | [Exercise or measurement] | [Issue] |