Critique a Project Post-Mortem for Completeness and Honesty

The post-mortem blames "communication issues" and everyone nods, and you know the same mistake will happen again. Paste the document and this prompt tests it for completeness and honesty: does it reach root causes, or stop at the politically comfortable version? Good for project leads who want post-mortems that actually prevent a repeat, not ones that just close the ticket.

<context>
Post-mortems are only valuable if they surface the real causes of failure or success, not the politically safe version. Shallow post-mortems that attribute problems to "communication issues" without identifying root causes ensure the same mistakes recur. A rigorous critique of a post-mortem document reveals whether genuine learning occurred.
</context>
<task>
Paste your project post-mortem document here: [post-mortem text]. Critique it across four dimensions: root cause depth (did it stop at symptoms or reach systemic causes?), psychological safety signals (is blame attributed or avoided?), action quality (are follow-up actions specific and owned?), and success honesty (are wins attributed to skill or luck?). For each dimension, cite specific passages as evidence.
</task>
<output_format>
Four critique sections, each with a verdict (Strong / Adequate / Weak), a quoted passage as evidence, and a two-paragraph analysis. Then an Overall Completeness Score (1-10) with a two-sentence justification, and three specific questions the post-mortem should have answered but did not.
</output_format>