This explanation feels unsatisfying. It's so high-level that it's mostly void of any actual information.
What was the wrong assumption that the code made that caused this wrong behavior? Why was it not caught in the many layers of automated testing before it made its way to production? What process and procedural changes are being implemented to reduce the risk of this class of bug happening again?
Presumably all of that is playing out internally, but if the public postmortem is meant to instill confidence, you have to actually share some of the details, or else it becomes meaningless.
What was the wrong assumption that the code made that caused this wrong behavior? Why was it not caught in the many layers of automated testing before it made its way to production? What process and procedural changes are being implemented to reduce the risk of this class of bug happening again?
Presumably all of that is playing out internally, but if the public postmortem is meant to instill confidence, you have to actually share some of the details, or else it becomes meaningless.