Post-Mortem / Retrospective Minutes Template (Root Cause + Action Plan)

A good post-mortem (or retrospective) minutes template does two things: it captures what happened in plain language and it converts that learning into a short action plan with owners and due dates. The template below helps you document impact, root causes, contributing factors, what worked, what didn’t, and the corrective actions that prevent a repeat.

It also includes guidance for turning a candid, messy discussion transcript into neutral notes that you can safely share, without losing the truth or triggering blame.

Primary keyword: post-mortem minutes template

Key takeaways

• Keep minutes short, factual, and action-focused: what happened, impact, causes, and next steps.
• Write for learning, not blame; describe behaviors and system gaps, not personal faults.
• Separate “discussion details” from “decisions and actions” so you can circulate the right version.
• Assign every corrective action an owner, a due date, and a verification step.
• Use a “prevent recurrence” checklist to turn one-time fixes into lasting controls.

When to use a post-mortem vs. a retrospective

Use a post-mortem after an incident, outage, launch issue, security scare, customer escalation, or missed deadline. The goal is to understand causes and reduce risk.

Use a retrospective after a sprint, project phase, or campaign. The goal is to improve how the team works and delivers.

In practice, the minutes can follow the same structure. You just adjust the language from “incident” to “iteration” and from “impact” to “outcomes.”

The post-mortem / retrospective minutes template (copy/paste)

Use this template as a one-page summary you can circulate. Keep it consistent from meeting to meeting so people know where to find key info.

1) Meeting details

• Title: [Incident/Project name] Post-Mortem / Retro
• Date/time: [YYYY-MM-DD, time zone]
• Facilitator: [Name]
• Note-taker: [Name]
• Attendees: [Names/teams]
• Audience for these minutes: [Internal team / wider org / leadership]
• Confidentiality level: [Public internally / Need-to-know / Sensitive]

2) Executive summary (2–5 sentences)

• What happened: [One sentence]
• Impact: [Who/what was affected; duration; scope in words]
• Primary cause(s): [One sentence, system-focused]
• Next steps: [Top 1–3 actions and due dates]

3) What happened (facts only)

Context: [What the team was trying to do; relevant background]

• Start time / trigger: [What signaled the issue]
• Detection: [How it was found: alert, customer report, QA, etc.]
• Response: [Key actions taken and by whom (roles, not names if sensitive)]
• Resolution: [What restored service or fixed the issue]
• Current status: [Resolved / Mitigated / Monitoring / Follow-up pending]

4) Impact assessment

• Who was impacted: [Customers/users/teams]
• What was impacted: [System/process/outcome]
• Severity: [Low/Medium/High or your internal scale]
• Duration: [Approximate; avoid guessing if unknown]
• Customer experience: [What users saw or couldn’t do]
• Business impact: [Delays, rework, compliance risk, reputation risk—describe, don’t quantify unless verified]

5) Timeline (optional but recommended)

• [Time] — [Event]
• [Time] — [Decision/action]
• [Time] — [Change deployed / rollback / communication sent]
• [Time] — [Recovery confirmed]

6) Root cause analysis

Root cause statement: [Because X, Y happened, which caused Z impact.]

Method used: [5 Whys / Fishbone / Fault tree / other]

• Root cause #1: [System/process gap, not a person]
• Evidence: [Logs, ticket links, screenshots, commit IDs, approvals—only what you can cite]
• Root cause #2 (if applicable): [Keep to 1–3 total]

7) Contributing factors (not the root cause)

List conditions that made the problem more likely or harder to detect, even if they didn’t directly cause it.

• People/process: [handoff gaps, unclear ownership, workload, training]
• Tools/tech: [monitoring coverage, test gaps, configuration drift]
• Change management: [review depth, release timing, rollback readiness]
• Communication: [channel confusion, delayed escalation, unclear status updates]

8) What went well

• [Example: Alerts fired quickly and on-call responded within minutes.]
• [Example: Clear incident commander role kept updates consistent.]
• [Example: Rollback path worked as designed.]

9) What didn’t go well

• [Example: No alert for the failure mode; detection relied on customers.]
• [Example: Runbook lacked steps for this scenario.]
• [Example: Ownership of the dependent service was unclear.]

10) Corrective actions (action plan)

Every item needs an owner, a due date, and a “done means” verification step.

• Action: [What you will change]
• Type: [Prevent / Detect / Respond / Recover]
• Owner: [Name or role]
• Due date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
• Priority: [P0/P1/P2 or High/Med/Low]
• Verification: [How you’ll prove it works: test, drill, metric, review]
• Status: [Not started / In progress / Blocked / Done]

Repeat the action block for each corrective action, or use a table in your doc tool.

11) Decisions made

• [Decision] — [Rationale] — [Owner]
• [Decision] — [Rationale] — [Owner]

12) Follow-up plan

• Next check-in: [Date/time]
• Where actions are tracked: [Jira/Asana/Trello link]
• When to close the post-mortem: [Criteria, e.g., all P0/P1 actions verified]

How to turn candid transcript discussion into safe, neutral minutes

Post-mortem meetings often include raw opinions, frustration, and partial facts. Your job in the minutes is to preserve learning while removing heat.

Use this workflow to convert a transcript into documentation that people can circulate without fear.

Step 1: Split the transcript into three buckets

• Facts: observable events (alerts, timestamps, actions taken, outcomes).
• Interpretations: guesses, theories, “I think,” “probably,” and assumptions.
• Decisions/actions: what the group agreed to do next.

Only facts and decisions/actions belong in widely shared minutes. Keep interpretations in a working doc until you confirm them.

Step 2: Replace blame language with system language

Swap “who failed” with “what allowed it.” If a human mistake mattered, document the condition that made the mistake likely.

• Instead of: “Alex forgot to update the config.”
• Write: “The deployment checklist did not include a config validation step.”

• Instead of: “QA didn’t test this.”
• Write: “Test coverage did not include [scenario], so the issue reached production.”

Step 3: Keep names out of the narrative (most of the time)

Use roles in the “what happened” section, like “on-call engineer” or “release manager,” especially when minutes go beyond the core team.

Keep owner names in the action plan so accountability stays clear and practical.

Step 4: Use “evidence words” and avoid absolutes

• Prefer: “Logs show…,” “The timeline indicates…,” “The alert fired at…”
• Avoid: “Always,” “Never,” “Everyone knew,” “No one cared.”

If something is not verified, label it as “unconfirmed” and assign an action to validate it.

Step 5: Convert long discussion into short bullets

Minutes should not read like a play-by-play of who said what. Capture outcomes in short bullets under the template headings.

If you must retain detail, attach the transcript as “internal reference” and keep the circulated minutes as the summary.

Guidance for handling sensitive accountability language

You can be honest without being harsh. The safest approach is to describe decisions, constraints, and gaps in controls.

Use this “accountability ladder” for safer wording

• Level 1 (safest): Process/tool gap — “There was no automated check for X.”
• Level 2: Decision under constraints — “The team chose X due to timeline constraints and missing data.”
• Level 3: Training/clarity gap — “Expectations for X were not documented, so steps varied by person.”
• Level 4 (use carefully): Individual error — “A manual step was missed during handoff,” followed by why the system allowed it.

Keep these items out of widely shared minutes

• Speculation about intent ("didn’t care," "rushed," "lazy").
• Performance judgments ("incompetent," "unqualified").
• Legal conclusions ("negligent," "violation") unless counsel approved.
• Security-sensitive details that would help an attacker.

Use a two-document approach when needed

• Circulating minutes: facts, root causes, contributing factors, and actions.
• Restricted appendix: raw transcript excerpts, sensitive details, and deeper investigative notes.

This keeps the organization learning while protecting people and risk areas.

Prevent recurrence checklist (before you close the post-mortem)

Use this checklist to confirm the action plan reduces risk and won’t fade after two weeks.

Prevention (stop it from happening)

• We removed or reduced manual steps where possible.
• We added guardrails (validation, linting, approvals, policy checks).
• We documented the correct process in a runbook or checklist.
• We clarified ownership for the affected systems and dependencies.

Detection (find it fast)

• We added alerts for the specific failure mode, not just generic uptime.
• We confirmed alert routing and on-call coverage.
• We defined “what good looks like” with simple thresholds or signals.

Response (act fast and consistently)

• We updated the runbook with clear first steps and escalation paths.
• We assigned an incident lead role and communication owner.
• We wrote a customer/internal communication template for this scenario.

Recovery (restore and learn)

• We tested rollback or recovery steps (or scheduled a drill).
• We confirmed backups, restores, and access paths work.
• We scheduled a follow-up review to confirm actions stayed in place.

Verification (prove the fix works)

• Each action includes a measurable verification step.
• We set a date to review evidence (test results, drill notes, metrics).
• We defined closure criteria for the post-mortem.

Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them)

• Pitfall: Writing a long narrative that no one reads.
  Fix: Keep a one-page summary and put deep detail in an appendix.
• Pitfall: Listing “root causes” that are really symptoms.
  Fix: Use “Because X, Y happened, causing Z” and validate with evidence.
• Pitfall: Action items without owners or dates.
  Fix: No owner and due date means it is not an action item yet.
• Pitfall: Over-focusing on a single person’s mistake.
  Fix: Document the control gap that allowed the mistake to matter.
• Pitfall: Fixes that only add meetings or approvals.
  Fix: Prefer automation, guardrails, and monitoring when possible.

Common questions

How long should post-mortem minutes be?

Aim for one to two pages of summary plus an action list. If you need more detail, attach a timeline, logs, or a restricted appendix.

Who should own corrective actions?

Assign actions to a single owner (a person or role) who can drive completion. Other contributors can support, but one owner keeps it moving.

Should we share the full transcript?

Often, no. Share a clean summary broadly and keep the transcript restricted, because transcripts capture emotion, speculation, and sensitive details.

How do we write a root cause without blaming someone?

Write the cause as a system condition: missing tests, unclear checklist, weak monitoring, risky default settings, or unclear ownership. Then add the action that changes that condition.

What if the team disagrees on the cause?

Document what you know as facts, label unknowns, and create a short investigation action with an owner and date. Update the minutes when evidence confirms the cause.

What’s the difference between corrective and preventive actions?

Corrective actions fix what broke right now. Preventive actions reduce the chance of a similar issue in the future, like adding guardrails and better detection.

What should we do if minutes include sensitive security or HR topics?

Use the two-document approach: circulate a safe summary and keep sensitive details in a restricted appendix with limited access. If needed, ask legal or HR to review wording before sharing.

Make minutes easier: record, transcribe, then summarize

If you record post-mortems, a transcript can help you capture decisions and action items accurately. It also helps you avoid misquoting people when a discussion gets tense.

GoTranscript can support your workflow with automated transcription for speed and transcription proofreading services when you need cleaner, shareable text. When you want a reliable written record for incident reviews, GoTranscript also offers professional transcription services that you can use to turn recordings into usable notes.