Protocol
Update stakeholders on a deliberate cadence
Silence creates its own incident narrative.
When it fits
- An incident creates repeated requests for status while facts are changing.
When to avoid it
- Do not publish sensitive details, unverified root causes or invented restoration times to satisfy the cadence.
Why it matters
Choose an update cadence that matches the impact and pace of change. Each update should state confirmed impact, current mitigation state, material changes since the last update and the next expected checkpoint. Publish even when there is no breakthrough; 'no material change' is more useful than leaving people to guess.
Steps
- Stakeholders know when the next authoritative update will arrive and stop relying on side-channel speculation.
An example
Send a short update every agreed checkpoint rather than answering five separate chats with slightly different versions.
Check your result
Stakeholders know when the next authoritative update will arrive and stop relying on side-channel speculation.
Keep this limit in mind
- Do not publish sensitive details, unverified root causes or invented restoration times to satisfy the cadence.
Evidence and sources
Supports
Google SRE incident guidance recommends regular status updates, and its communications role explicitly includes periodic updates to responders and stakeholders.
Cadence should match impact and change rate; update frequency is not a universal fixed interval.
Incident Response · Keep your audience informed