Almost all documentation is terrible
Documentation is an afterthought, there is the perception that the code has to get to the customer first to realise revenue and the docs can come some time later. Docs written by a Tech Author often without experience in the problem domain, working from poorly elaborated specs (or "stories" if you like being fashionable) and trying to pump information from overworked Devs who are stressing about the next sprint and the need to present progress at the next stand-up unless they get a black mark.
So the docs are late, inaccurate, poorly written and untested. No one gives a shit because the next release is coming and there's the ££££.
Then the customer satisfaction surveys come in and managers wonder why the perception of quality is so low. Clearly the software is buggy, so the Devs and and QA get whipped harder to work longer hours and make less mistakes. But that's not the problem, and it's not the Tech Author's fault either. The docs are just as, if not more so, important than the code.
Nothing, nothing should be considered released until the docs have been proof-read by multiple people and tested. Yes, tested. It's perfectly feasible to test docs. Only once that is done and the docs pass should one push a feature on to Release.
End result? Happier customers who understand what the software/service does, how it works, how to workaround issues, how to self-help, fewer Support calls, less stressed out Support Techs who can't understand the shitty docs and have to call on Devs who can barely remember what they did in that version before is was over three months ago.