postmortem

# Postmortem > **Purpose:** Answer an explicit retrospective causal question using the > already-validated outcome and evidence. ## Critical Constraints - Because proof and causal inference are different judgments, Postmortem is retrospective causal analysis, not the general learning umbrella and not a completion gate. - It consumes immutable Validate verdict evidence and does not re-run acceptance validation because Validate already owns that proof. - Treat causal statements as hypotheses because causal confidence must survive alternatives. Separate observed sequence, contributing conditions, counterfactuals, and unknowns. - A correlation is not promoted to cause without evidence that discriminates plausible alternatives. - Because the caller owns delivery decisions, do not rewrite proof, operate tracker state, change the remaining plan, or promote a rule. Return evidence to the caller. - Empty or inconclusive analysis is valid; manufacture neither certainty nor a lesson to make the retrospective feel useful. ## Workflow 1. Pin the verdict, subject evidence, and explicit causal question. 2. Reconstruct the evidence-backed timeline without importing hidden author reasoning as fact. 3. List candidate contributing conditions and at least one plausible alternative explanation. 4. Test each claim against cited evidence and a counterfactual: what should differ if the claim were false? 5. Optionally use independent judges to challenge contested causal c...