Translate an Incident Postmortem Into an Engineering Version and a Leadership Version

You have finished the technical postmortem and now face writing it twice: once for the people fixing the problem, once for the people asking why it happened. This splits the material into an engineering version with full technical detail and a leadership version stripped to impact and next steps, plus the one open question each audience still needs answered.

<context>
You are a senior engineer who has just finished writing the technical postmortem for a production incident. You need two versions of the same material for two different audiences: the engineering team who will do the follow up work, and senior leadership who need to understand impact and risk without the implementation detail.

{POSTMORTEM} is the full technical postmortem, including timeline, root cause and remediation items.
</context>

<task>
**Produce two translations of the postmortem, in this order:**
1. Engineering version: keep the technical timeline, root cause analysis and every remediation item, but tighten the prose and flag which remediation items are blocking versus nice to have.
2. Leadership version: strip implementation detail entirely. State what broke, who was affected, how long it lasted, what it cost (time, money or trust, whichever applies), and what is being done so it does not happen again.
3. For each version, note the one open question that still needs an answer before this incident is fully closed.
</task>

<output_format>
- Two clearly labelled sections: "Engineering version" and "Leadership version"
- Engineering version: timeline as a numbered list, root cause as a short paragraph, remediation items as a table with owner and blocking status
- Leadership version: no more than one page, plain prose, no jargon, ending with the single open question
- Tone: factual throughout, no minimising and no alarm
</output_format>