Skip to content

PATTERN Cited by 1 source

PR/FAQ Writing (Amazon Working-Backwards Doc)

PR/FAQ is Amazon's internal practice of authoring a new product or service as a mock press release (what would we announce, to whom, why do they care) followed by an FAQ that pre-answers customer and internal-stakeholder questions — before building the thing. It is a "working backwards" forcing function for product and architectural decisions.

What it is, per the source

From Werner Vogels' 2024 annotation of the 2014 Lambda PR/FAQ:

"As an Amazonian, regardless of role or seniority, there is an expectation that when you have a good idea, you'll put pen to paper and craft a compelling narrative. These docs take many forms: one-pagers, two-pagers, the infamous six-pager, and of course PR/FAQs – a press release followed by frequently asked questions we anticipate our customers will have, or that our internal stakeholders will (and often do) have. These press releases are internal tools, not shared broadly, designed to ensure we clearly define what we will deliver for customers."

And on why:

"Writing forces the author to be clear, precise, and detailed. To string sentences together, take a position, and support that position with data. It places the burden on the author to avoid anything confusing or that could be misinterpreted by the reader. It's hard work. I've never seen someone get it right the first time. It takes collecting feedback and revising and then revising again."

(Source: sources/2024-11-15-allthingsdistributed-aws-lambda-prfaq-after-10-years)

Structure observed in the Lambda PR/FAQ

  1. Headline + subhead ("Amazon Web Services Launches AWS Lambda / Easily run any code as an AWS-operated scalable, secure, and reliable cloud service").
  2. Dateline + overview paragraph written as if a customer is reading it today. Names the problem, names the solution, states pricing shape.
  3. Customer testimonial quotes (templated — "CTO of XXX") — aspirational, signalling who the target customer is.
  4. Usage walkthrough in a few short paragraphs.
  5. External FAQ, grouped by theme (General · Developing & deploying · Languages & libraries · Invoking · Security · Capacity & scale · Limits · Performance). Written in customer voice.
  6. Internal FAQ, also grouped (when to recommend / not recommend the service, tenets, operational metrics, cost rationale). Written in "what we as a team commit to" voice.

Tenets section as a decision anchor

The Tenets entry of the internal FAQ is the single highest-leverage part of the doc. Vogels' annotation: "At Amazon, tenets are guiding principles that shape a team's decision-making process and overall strategy. You'll find them in almost every doc. Tenets as a guide for us as the product inevitably evolves. They keep us honest with ourselves, and help simplify decision making when reaching consensus becomes challenging."

Lambda's six tenets (security without complexity · simple and easy · scales up and down to zero · cost effective at any scale · AWS integration · reliable) continued to be load-bearing a decade later — e.g., "scales to zero" dictated that Lambda's placement engine could never assume per-account warm capacity, which in turn made multi-tenant dense isolation (Firecracker) non-negotiable.

What the pattern is good at

  • Catching incoherence before code. The author is forced to reconcile pricing, scaling, isolation, security, and API surface in one voice.
  • Compressing stakeholder alignment. The FAQ pre-answers the obvious objections ("when should we not recommend this?", "how do we secure it?", "what limits?") so review meetings can focus on disagreements rather than definition.
  • Generating an artefact that survives the product. The 2014 Lambda PR/FAQ is still readable a decade on and produces clear, check-able statements: what shipped as described, what shipped differently, what was deferred.

Known failure modes

  • False precision. Numbers in a PR/FAQ ("250ms billing", "1 GB memory max") will often change by launch — Vogels flags this explicitly: "we are not omniscient, and the goal of writing is not perfection."
  • Aspirational testimonials can read as evidence when they are just target profiles.
  • Easy to confuse the doc with the plan — it is the specification of success, not the execution plan.

Seen in

Last updated · 200 distilled / 1,178 read