I disagree, the target audience is also going to be less technical people, and the gist is clear to everyone: they just deploy this config from 0 to 100% to production, without feature gates or rollback. And they made changes to the config that wasn’t deployed for weeks until some other change was made, which also smells like a process error.

I will not say whether or not it’s acceptable for a company of their size and maturity, but it’s definitely not hidden in corporate lingo.

I do believe they could have elaborate more on the follow up steps they will take to prevent this from happening again, I don’t think staggered roll outs are the only answer to this, they’re just a safety net.

If you carry on reading, its quite obvious they misconfigured a service and routed production traffic to that instead of the correct service, and the system used to do that was built in 2018 and is considered legacy (probably because you can easily deploy bad configs). Given that, I wouldn't say the summary is "inscrutable corporatese" whatever that is.

I agree it's not "inscrutable corporatese"

It's carefully written so my boss's boss thinks he understands it, and that we cannot possibly have that problem because we obviously don't have any "legacy components" because we are "modern and progressive".

It is, in my opinion, closer to "intentionally misleading corporatese".

Joe Shmo committed the wrong config file to production. Innocent mistake. Sally caught it in 30 seconds. We were back up inside 2 minutes. Sent Joe to the margarita shop to recover his shattered nerves. Kid deserves a raise. Etc.

Yea the "timeline" indicating impact start/end is entirely false when you look at the traffic graph shared later in the post.

Or they have a different definition of impact than I do