Which option is a correct approach to take when reviewing an incident in a postmortem?

Reviewing an incident in a postmortem is a crucial step in understanding what happened and how to prevent similar issues in the future. Analyzing the timeline with facts and metrics is the correct approach because it allows teams to objectively evaluate the incident by looking at the sequence of events, decisions made, and the impact of those decisions based on concrete data. This method provides a comprehensive view of the incident, helping teams identify patterns, root causes, and areas for improvement.

Using metrics and a factual timeline also encourages a culture of learning and accountability, as it shifts the focus away from blame and towards understanding the system as a whole. This promotes constructive discussions that can lead to actionable insights and improved processes in the future.

In contrast, focusing solely on the end result neglects the valuable insights that can be gained from understanding the entire process leading up to that result. Highlighting errors without context can create misunderstandings and fail to provide the necessary background that can explain why certain decisions were made. Placing emphasis only on individual performance risks fostering a culture of blame, which can stifle open communication and learning.