𝐋𝐞𝐭’𝐬 𝐭𝐚𝐥𝐤 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐐𝐀 -> 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐥𝐚𝐦𝐞.

When something slips through and shows up in production, the key isn't panic or finger-pointing - it's structured analysis.

🔍 𝐇𝐞𝐫𝐞’𝐬 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐈 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐭:

1. Reproduce & isolate the issue.
   • Get the minimal steps, affected areas, and logs/data.
2. Trace the lifecycle of the defect:
   • Was it missing in requirements?
   • Was it untested? Or untestable?
   • Was the automation flaky or skipped?
   • Did CI/CD validations miss it?
3. Review the timeline:
   • From ticket → dev → QA → release.
4. Look at tooling and coverage gaps:
   • Could a static check or regression test have caught this?

𝐍𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭:
👥 𝐃𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐡𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞?
In my opinion - no.

We highlight the 𝐠𝐚𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬, not the person. If someone learns something from it - that's already a win. A transparent, blameless environment encourages better reporting and faster improvements.

✅ 𝐅𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬:

• What will catch it next time?
• What will help the person grow?
• How can we prevent similar issues?
• Mistakes are inevitable - improvement is optional. Let’s always choose the latter. What’s your QA post-incident process like? Do you agree with blameless retros?

👇 I’d love to hear your thoughts.

QA #PostMortem #BlamelessRetrospective #SoftwareTesting #ContinuousImprovement #RootCauseAnalysis #QualityAssurance #DevOps #CICD #NoBlameCulture