I've got a few friends who work at Amazon, and while the story certainly sounds embellished and a bit too "just-so", the corporate attitude of make-work to justify a promotion even when its a waste of time and resources rings true as a bell.

Did this guy actually oversee a fully transition to a new service and waste a bunch of internal time and money for a system that's sub-optimal by any conceivable measure? Idk, maybe. If he'd just written "Twitter" instead of "Amazon", I'd have taken it at face value no problem.

Did this guy author an overly-complex plan as part of his promotional material, get it vetted and reviewed and rubber stamped by a bunch of friendly higher-ups because they wanted to justify his promotion, and then stuck on a shelf marked "Maybe we'll do this in 2029 if we're not busy with something else"? Equally likely.

Does Amazon have a bunch of bread and butter break-fix work they could be dedicating staff to, rather than chasing the next digital White Whale so they can feel cutting edge? Yeah, no shit. Absolutely.

I've seen some garbage slide through code reviews. Most people don't do them well.

I'm doing contract work at a big multinational company, and I saw a syntax error slide through code review the other day. Just, like, too many parenthesis, the function literally wouldn't work. (No, they don't have automated unit tests or CI/CD. Yes, that's insane. No, I don't have any power to fix that, but I am trying anyway). It's not hard to imagine something more subtle like a memory leak getting through.

In my experience, people don't want to say "I think this is all a bad idea" if you have a large code review. A couple years ago, a guy went off and wrote a whole DSL for a task. Technically, it's pretty impressive. It was, however, in my opinion, wholly unnecessary for the task at hand. I objected to this and suggested we stick with the serviceable, supported, and interoperable approach we had. The team decided to just move forward with his solution, because he'd spent time on it and it was ready to go. So I can definitely see a bunch of people not wanting to make waves and just signing off on something big.

I can't speak to this situation, but broadly speaking I am familiar with general messed up stuff like this as well as perhaps adjusting some fine details to make the scenario relatable to an audience unfamiliar with the specifics of the real situation and/or obfuscating the details so that the person doesn't out themselves to someone else familiar with the specifics enough to recognize.

The broad strokes seem plausible and any oddities in details I consider to be less important and/or understandable if it was tweaked for an internet audience.