As Wayne points out later in the thread, it's because those who are paying attention already know the answers but the questions are specifically designed to both confirm that eMudhra actually understands what they've done wrong and are willing to publicly acknowledge it, which is a critical factor in how an incident will affect trust going forward.

Obviously in this case eMudhra has decided they don't want the responsibility anymore which I actually respect to some extent.

It's brutal the way reading lawyer interrogatory questions is brutal. Facts, details, and specific data that hold people accountable. The language is also in legitimate government probes and incident response reports.

I'd like to say it's how journalism works as well, but that ship sailed decades ago.

I think they brutally expose the utter incompetence of that company.

Reasonably brutal.