A good post-mortem summary does a few things: (1) describes the actual event timeline clearly and precisely; (2) describes the negative consequences of the even

A good post-mortem summary does a few things: (1) describes the actual event timeline clearly and precisely; (2) describes the negative consequences of the event (if they are not implicitly clear) from the end-user's point of view; (3) lays out exactly what mistakes were made that led to and continued the event--whether in assumptions made, process failures, inadequate process, unanticipated consequences, side effects to remediation attempts, etc; (4) describes planned and potential changes that will avoid the problem in the future along with a communication plan for keeping stakeholders informed of any future changes. A good post-mortem does all of this while taking a broad, organization-level view of the event and a user-focused view of its consequences. Maybe the internal document covers all of this, but this blog-post summary does not. And what is included here does not bring me great confidence. Firstly, this summary indicates they were far too narrowly focused in their assessment, talking only about the Mr Robot promotion's compatibility with the purpose and restrictions of the SHIELD tool. And I suspect that maybe internally the story now is that some marketing staff misused the SHIELD approval process to get this plugin around other more robust processes. But the intricacies of which particular avenue within Firefox or Mozilla this occurred through is a backwards view of the problem. Users aren't upset that the SHIELD tool was misused to push an ad on unsuspecting and confused users. They're upset that _Firefox_ was misused to push an ad on unsuspecting and confused users. The problem here is the entire idea of a "TV show tie-in" to Firefox. And lastly, the action items here are pretty pathetic, and fail to address users' concerns (not a surprise since users' concerns are never explicitly recognized in the post, either). Yes, SHIELD studies should be actual studies; and yes, SHIELD studies should be clearly named; and yes, it's bad that the SHIELD program was used to ship a commercial. But never once does this post promise that Mozilla will take a broader view of the actual needs and desires of their users, or that they will correct their internal mindset that led to anyone thinking this tie-in was ever remotely a good idea.