THE POSTMORTEM — Project Post-Mortem OS Brain

$49.00
◆ timeline_build.py · cause, not blame

THE POSTMORTEM — Project Post-Mortem OS Brain

For the review that actually changes something. One orchestrator plus ten specialists that rebuild what happened as a dated timeline, separate contributing factors from whoever stood nearest the failure, and produce actions with owners rather than a list of feelings.

What makes it different

Most post-mortems find a person. It is the cheapest available answer and it fixes nothing, because the next person in the same system does the same thing. The timeline script takes events with timestamps and decision points and rebuilds the sequence, marking where information existed somewhere but had not reached the person who needed it. That one distinction — the gap between what was knowable and what was known at the point of decision — accounts for most failures and is almost never in the write-up. Blame is the failure mode this refuses.

It ships working code, not just prompts timeline_build.py

Builds a dated event and decision timeline, marks each decision with what was knowable at that moment against what was actually known, and surfaces information gaps rather than individuals. Ranks contributing factors by how many decisions each one touched. Every OS Brain in this drop carries its own executable component, so the judgement calls stay with you and the arithmetic stops being a matter of opinion. Runs anywhere Python runs, and the specialists still work on their own if you never open it.

Say it in plain words — it works out the rest

"The project failed"→ full pipeline, timeline first
"Whose fault was it?"→ 04 · wrong question, here is the right one
"It'll just happen again"→ 08 · actions with owners and dates
"Nobody will speak honestly"→ 02 · how to run it so they do
"We reviewed it and nothing changed"→ 09 · because there were no owners

Inside · orchestrator + 10 specialists

01Scope of ReviewWhat you are actually examining
02Running It SafelyHow to get honest input
03The TimelineDated, sourced, factual
04Contributing FactorsThe system, not the person
05The Information GapKnown somewhere, not known there
06Near MissesWhat nearly went wrong too
07What Went RightThe parts worth protecting
08Actions and OwnersDated, assigned, few
09Follow ThroughThe review of the review
10Postmortem LedgerPatterns across projects

Where it refuses to skip ahead

  • No conclusions before the timeline — a narrative written first will find the facts that fit it.
  • No single root cause — real failures have several contributing factors, and picking one hides the rest.
  • No action without an owner and a date — unowned actions are why the same review happens again next year.
  • No naming individuals as causes — if the process allowed it, the process is the finding.
Works in all 7 channels
1Any chatupload the zip
2Claude Projectsadd as knowledge
3ChatGPT / GPTsknowledge files
4Gemini Gemsknowledge files
5Claude Codeskills folder
6Agent frameworkssystem instruction
7Paste-onlydegrades gracefully
The habit it is really selling: run the review of the review ninety days later. Actions nobody checked are the reason organisations post-mortem the same failure repeatedly. Single-seat license. Process tooling, not an HR or disciplinary instrument — if a review surfaces conduct issues, that belongs with HR and outside this process entirely.
Bargain amount
You've got 3 shots to bargain, so use them wisely!