{"_readme":"Machine-readable doctrine audit for the Campus Alert Archive (/plan-vs-practice/). Nine published best-practice claims about alerting during campus violence, each tested against the archive under the pre-declared thresholds recorded here. Verdicts are computed at build time from the findings' metrics (see /findings.json) — never hand-typed — under the pinned per-claim aggregation: any sample under its declared n-floor → NOT TESTABLE; otherwise all tests consistent → CONSISTENT; a strict majority in tension with none consistent → TENSION; otherwise MIXED. Two further verdict paths: claims with a notTestable reason are NOT TESTABLE by declaration (tests is empty), and composite claims (compositeOf set) take NOT TESTABLE if any input is, CONSISTENT if all are, TENSION if any is, otherwise MIXED. Per test, the consistent rule is evaluated before the tension rule; declared bands are disjoint. quoteKind 'verbatim' passages are word-for-word from the cited source; 'paraphrase' passages condense it and are never rendered in quotation marks. Analysis: Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic). License: Compilation, metadata, summaries, and annotations © Campus Alert Archive, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Verbatim alert and policy texts remain the work of their issuing institutions, reproduced from publicly available sources, and are not covered by the CC BY license. Cite the archive: see /dataset/.","analysisBy":"Claude Fable 5","datasetVersion":"2026.07","accessedDate":"2026-07-06","summary":{"CONSISTENT":2,"TENSION":1,"MIXED":4,"NOT TESTABLE":2},"claims":[{"id":"d1","short":"Notify without delay","citeShort":"34 CFR § 668.46(g)(3)","quote":"without delay, and taking into account the safety of the community, determine the content of the notification and initiate the notification system, unless issuing a notification will, in the professional judgment of responsible authorities, compromise efforts to assist a victim or to contain, respond to, or otherwise mitigate the emergency","quoteKind":"verbatim","quoteSource":{"title":"34 CFR § 668.46(g)(3) — the emergency-notification “without delay” requirement","publisher":"U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-D/section-668.46#p-668.46(g)(3)","mirrorUrl":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.46","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[],"findingIds":["violence-first-alert-speed"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"Ten minutes is this audit's editorial bar for “fast” — the regulation itself sets no number. Thirty minutes from incident start is the mark that strains “without delay” even after granting the unmeasured confirmation interval; Virginia Tech's 131-minute gap in 2007 is the historical anchor for the rule itself. The wide middle band is deliberate: the archive's clock runs from incident start, not from the confirmation moment where the regulatory clock starts.","tests":[{"label":"Median documented latency","metric":"violence-first-alert-speed.latencyMedianMin","unit":"min","consistentIf":{"op":"<=","value":10},"tensionIf":{"op":">","value":30},"minN":50,"computedValue":15,"n":139,"outcome":"neutral"},{"label":"Share taking more than 30 minutes","metric":"violence-first-alert-speed.shareOver30Pct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":"<=","value":10},"tensionIf":{"op":">=","value":25},"minN":50,"computedValue":29,"n":139,"outcome":"tension"},{"label":"Share alerting within 10 minutes","metric":"violence-first-alert-speed.shareWithin10Pct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":50},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":20},"minN":50,"computedValue":43,"n":139,"outcome":"neutral"}],"context":[{"label":"Lower quartile","value":5,"n":139,"unit":"min"},{"label":"Upper quartile","value":38,"n":139,"unit":"min"}],"verdict":"MIXED","verdictSentence":"Median documented latency: consistent if ≤ 10 min, tension if > 30 min — computed 15 min (n=139) → clears neither bar. Share taking more than 30 minutes: consistent if ≤ 10%, tension if ≥ 25% — computed 29% (n=139) → tension. Share alerting within 10 minutes: consistent if ≥ 50%, tension if ≤ 20% — computed 43% (n=139) → clears neither bar. 0 of 3 tests consistent, 1 in tension, 2 clearing neither pre-declared bar → MIXED.","plannerTakeaway":["Plan the confirmation step, not just the send. The regulation's clock starts at confirmation — and the canonical slow cases, Virginia Tech above all, were slow at confirmation and authorization, not at typing.","The regulation's standard is “without delay,” not a number. If you adopt a working target (this audit's editorial bar for fast is ten minutes from first report), the documented record shows speed is attainable — the fastest documented responses landed within a minute or two — though the documented subset skews toward well-covered incidents.","Pre-authorize senders. The regulation's only sanctioned delay is professional judgment that notifying would compromise the response — committee sign-off is not on that list."],"caveats":["Latency is documented for a minority of cases, skewed toward well-reported incidents; the undocumented majority is absent, not average.","The archive measures incident start → first alert; the regulation measures confirmation → initiation. The difference (the confirmation time) is real work the public record rarely shows."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d2","short":"Provide follow-up information","citeShort":"34 CFR § 668.46(e)(3)","quote":"An institution that follows its emergency notification procedures is not required to issue a timely warning based on the same circumstances; however, the institution must provide adequate follow-up information to the community as needed.","quoteKind":"verbatim","quoteSource":{"title":"34 CFR § 668.46(e)(3) — the follow-up information requirement","publisher":"U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-D/section-668.46#p-668.46(e)(3)","mirrorUrl":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.46","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[],"findingIds":["violence-follow-through"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"Eighty-five percent asks the record to show follow-up as the norm while allowing for documentation loss; below sixty percent would mean the public record routinely stops at one message. The regulation sets no follow-up clock, so cadence is published as context, not tested.","tests":[{"label":"Share of cases documenting a follow-up-type message","metric":"violence-follow-through.followUpPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":85},"tensionIf":{"op":"<","value":60},"minN":300,"computedValue":92,"n":1062,"outcome":"consistent"}],"context":[{"label":"Median first-alert → first-update gap","value":41.5,"n":104,"unit":"min"},{"label":"Updated within 30 minutes","value":38,"n":104,"unit":"pct"}],"verdict":"CONSISTENT","verdictSentence":"Share of cases documenting a follow-up-type message: consistent if ≥ 85%, tension if < 60% — computed 92% (n=1062) → consistent. 1 of 1 test consistent, 0 in tension, 0 clearing neither pre-declared bar → CONSISTENT.","plannerTakeaway":["Budget for the second message before the first goes out: who writes it, on what trigger, on what clock. The duty to keep informing is regulatory, not stylistic.","Treat the archive's median wait for a first update — published as context beside this verdict — as a warning, not a benchmark: warning research consistently finds that people who receive an alert immediately begin seeking confirmation, and silence sends them to rumor."],"caveats":["A missing follow-up in this archive is a documentation gap, not proof none was sent; the share is best read as how often the public record goes on."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d3","short":"Send a complete message","citeShort":"FEMA IPAWS guidance","quote":"FEMA's alerting guidance calls for a warning message to carry five components: the source issuing it, the hazard, the location, the protective action to take, and when the guidance expires.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"IPAWS Best Practices Guide","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency","url":"https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-best-practices-guide.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-best-practices-guide.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"IPAWS Tip 44 — Best Practices for Wireless Emergency Alerts","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency (July 2022)","url":"https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-tip-44-best-practices-wea.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-tip-44-best-practices-wea.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["violence-element-gap"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"Seventy-five percent would show the five-component message as standard practice; forty percent or below shows it is the exception. The bar tests presence only — a vague instruction counts — so it is generous to practice.","tests":[{"label":"Violent-threat first alerts carrying all five components","metric":"violence-element-gap.allFiveIpawsPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":75},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":40},"minN":200,"computedValue":16,"n":422,"outcome":"tension"}],"context":[{"label":"Corpus-wide baseline","value":25,"n":828,"unit":"pct"},{"label":"Time element present","value":47,"n":422,"unit":"pct"},{"label":"Impact element present","value":40,"n":422,"unit":"pct"}],"verdict":"TENSION","verdictSentence":"Violent-threat first alerts carrying all five components: consistent if ≥ 75%, tension if ≤ 40% — computed 16% (n=422) → tension. 0 of 1 test consistent, 1 in tension, 0 clearing neither pre-declared bar → TENSION.","plannerTakeaway":["Build the five components into the template so completeness is structural: a blank labeled SOURCE / HAZARD / LOCATION / ACTION / TIME survives stress better than prose recall.","The elements that fall furthest under violence are time and impact — the two that require saying how bad and how current. Draft those clauses in advance for each scenario.","The evidence here is a gap between doctrine and practice, and the recommendation stays with doctrine: nothing in this record suggests the five components are the wrong target — only that current practice is not reaching it."],"caveats":["Element coding is AI-generated (25 passes per alert, auditable per alert); presence says nothing about quality.","Only verbatim-confirmed first alerts are coded, over-representing institutions that publish archives."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d4","short":"Tell people what to do","citeShort":"DHS 2008 · Run. Hide. Fight.","quote":"Federal active-shooter doctrine tells individuals to evacuate if escape is possible, hide if it is not, and — as a last resort, when life is in imminent danger — take action against the shooter. Since 2012 the public formulation has been Run. Hide. Fight.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"Active Shooter: How to Respond","publisher":"U.S. Department of Homeland Security (October 2008)","url":"https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/active_shooter_booklet.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"Active Shooter — Run, Hide, Fight (protective actions)","publisher":"FEMA Protective Actions Research (community.fema.gov)","url":"https://community.fema.gov/ProtectiveActions/s/article/Active-Shooter-Run-Hide-Fight","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://community.fema.gov/ProtectiveActions/s/article/Active-Shooter-Run-Hide-Fight","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},{"title":"Guide for Developing High-Quality Emergency Operations Plans for Institutions of Higher Education","publisher":"U.S. Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, HHS; FEMA; FBI (June 2013)","url":"https://rems.ed.gov/docs/IHE_Guide_508C.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://rems.ed.gov/docs/IHE_Guide_508C.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["violence-action-taxonomy"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"Ninety percent asks protective action to be near-universal in violent-threat first alerts, which is doctrine's premise; seventy-five percent of armed-report alerts carrying a concealment-family order would show the doctrine's protective action reliably reaching the message stream.","tests":[{"label":"Violent-threat first alerts carrying any protective instruction","metric":"violence-action-taxonomy.guidancePresentPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":90},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":75},"minN":200,"computedValue":83,"n":422,"outcome":"neutral"},{"label":"Armed-report first alerts carrying any protective instruction","metric":"violence-action-taxonomy.armedGuidancePresentPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":90},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":75},"minN":100,"computedValue":81,"n":283,"outcome":"neutral"},{"label":"Armed-report first alerts ordering concealment (lockdown / shelter / stay inside)","metric":"violence-action-taxonomy.armedConcealmentPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":75},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":40},"minN":100,"computedValue":49,"n":283,"outcome":"neutral"}],"context":[{"label":"First alerts containing “Run. Hide. Fight.”","value":19,"n":422,"unit":"count"}],"verdict":"MIXED","verdictSentence":"Violent-threat first alerts carrying any protective instruction: consistent if ≥ 90%, tension if ≤ 75% — computed 83% (n=422) → clears neither bar. Armed-report first alerts carrying any protective instruction: consistent if ≥ 90%, tension if ≤ 75% — computed 81% (n=283) → clears neither bar. Armed-report first alerts ordering concealment (lockdown / shelter / stay inside): consistent if ≥ 75%, tension if ≤ 40% — computed 49% (n=283) → clears neither bar. 0 of 3 tests consistent, 0 in tension, 3 clearing neither pre-declared bar → MIXED.","plannerTakeaway":["Run. Hide. Fight. instructs the person in the room; a mass alert addresses a population. Decide in the plan — before the incident — which protective action each scenario's alert orders, and teach the individual doctrine in training rather than assuming the alert will deliver it.","Whatever the phrasing, the instruction must be there: a meaningful minority of coded violent-threat first alerts carry none (the computed share sits in the test table above), and doctrine treats the protective action as the reason the message exists.","If Run. Hide. Fight. is your institution's trained doctrine, decide in advance whether and when the phrase itself belongs in an alert — the archive shows a small number of first alerts do carry it verbatim."],"caveats":["The instruction taxonomy is keyword-based over verbatim texts; presence itself comes from the 25-pass element coding.","A first alert with no instruction is not proof none followed — later messages in the sequence often carry it."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d5","short":"Assess bomb threats before evacuating","citeShort":"DHS-DOJ Bomb Threat Guidance","quote":"Federal bomb-threat guidance is graduated: assess the threat's specificity and credibility first, then choose among monitoring, searching, sheltering, or evacuating. Evacuation is a decision the assessment can reach — not a default the threat triggers. The overwhelming majority of bomb threats prove not credible; CISA's review of the 2017–2021 mass bomb-threat campaigns found a real device in 3 of 6,071 incidents.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"DHS-DOJ Bomb Threat Guidance (quad-fold)","publisher":"DHS / DOJ / FBI, via CISA","url":"https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/dhs-doj-bomb-threat-guidance-quad-fold","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/dhs-doj-bomb-threat-guidance-quad-fold","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"Bomb Threat Guide","publisher":"Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency","url":"https://www.cisa.gov/resources-tools/resources/bomb-threat-guide","mirrorUrl":"https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/2023-08/Bomb%20Threat%20Guide_v1.9_508.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},{"title":"Responding to Mass Bomb Threat Campaigns","publisher":"Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency","url":"https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/TAB-Bomb%20Threat%20Campaigns_unclassified_508%20Compliant.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/TAB-Bomb%20Threat%20Campaigns_unclassified_508%20Compliant.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["bomb-threat-reflex"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"Eighty percent hoax-or-unfounded confirms doctrine's premise that most threats are false — the archive's computed share sits beside CISA's 0.05% real-device rate. An evacuation-order share at or below half is read as consistent with graduated response; three quarters or more would read as reflexive evacuation. The band between those bars is wide, and where the computed share sits near a bar the takeaways treat the margin as thin rather than settled.","tests":[{"label":"Archived bomb threats resolving as hoax or unfounded","metric":"bomb-threat-reflex.hoaxUnfoundedPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":80},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":50},"minN":100,"computedValue":98,"n":269,"outcome":"consistent"},{"label":"Verbatim first alerts ordering or announcing evacuation","metric":"bomb-threat-reflex.evacuateFirstAlertPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":"<=","value":50},"tensionIf":{"op":">=","value":75},"minN":50,"computedValue":46,"n":92,"outcome":"consistent"}],"context":[{"label":"Resolved as a confirmed threat","value":4,"n":269,"unit":"count"},{"label":"Median first alert → all-clear","value":130,"n":67,"unit":"min"}],"verdict":"CONSISTENT","verdictSentence":"Archived bomb threats resolving as hoax or unfounded: consistent if ≥ 80%, tension if ≤ 50% — computed 98% (n=269) → consistent. Verbatim first alerts ordering or announcing evacuation: consistent if ≤ 50%, tension if ≥ 75% — computed 46% (n=92) → consistent. 2 of 2 tests consistent, 0 in tension, 0 clearing neither pre-declared bar → CONSISTENT.","plannerTakeaway":["Write the assessment step into the plan as a named decision with a named owner: who evaluates specificity and credibility, against what checklist, before the first instruction goes out.","Pre-script the hold-in-place variant, not just the evacuation variant. A large share of archived bomb-threat first alerts order the most disruptive option against a threat class that overwhelmingly proves false — and evacuation itself moves people past unsearched spaces.","The doctrine is not “never evacuate”: a specific, credible threat warrants it. The plan's job is to make evacuation the assessment's conclusion rather than the alert's reflex."],"caveats":["The archive over-collects dramatic incidents including hoax waves; its hoax share describes this corpus, not a national rate — though federal data points the same direction.","An evacuation order in a first alert is not proof the assessment was skipped; the record shows what was sent, not what was weighed."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=bomb-threat"},{"id":"d6","short":"Pre-script your templates","citeShort":"FEMA IPAWS guidance","quote":"FEMA's alerting guidance tells originators to draft message templates before an emergency, so that composing under stress becomes filling in blanks rather than writing from scratch.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"IPAWS Tip 44 — Best Practices for Wireless Emergency Alerts","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency (July 2022)","url":"https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-tip-44-best-practices-wea.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-tip-44-best-practices-wea.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"IPAWS Best Practices Guide","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency","url":"https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-best-practices-guide.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-best-practices-guide.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["violence-element-gap"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":{"reason":"Whether an institution composed from a pre-scripted template is invisible in the sent message — the archive records outputs, not workflows. The nearest observable fingerprint — mean element counts for fast versus slower alerts — is published as context beside this claim, on samples too small to settle anything in either direction."},"thresholdRationale":null,"tests":[],"context":[{"label":"Mean elements, alerts within 10 min (of 6)","value":4.26,"n":27,"unit":"count"},{"label":"Mean elements, slower alerts (of 6)","value":4.08,"n":49,"unit":"count"}],"verdict":"NOT TESTABLE","verdictSentence":"Whether an institution composed from a pre-scripted template is invisible in the sent message — the archive records outputs, not workflows. The nearest observable fingerprint — mean element counts for fast versus slower alerts — is published as context beside this claim, on samples too small to settle anything in either direction.","plannerTakeaway":["Pre-script per scenario — armed person, bomb threat, shelter-in-place, all-clear — with the five message components as labeled blanks, and keep the templates where the sender under stress actually is.","Exercise the templates: the component most often missing under violence (time, of the five FEMA components — the archive also codes a sixth element, impact) is precisely the blank a drill would catch."],"caveats":["This claim is untestable from sent messages by construction; nothing here is evidence against pre-scripting."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d7","short":"Fast alert, then fill in","citeShort":"34 CFR § 668.46(g) + (e)","quote":"Taken together, the two Clery duties order a sequence: initiate notification without delay once the emergency is confirmed, then keep the community adequately informed as the situation develops.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"34 CFR § 668.46(g)(3) — the emergency-notification “without delay” requirement","publisher":"U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-D/section-668.46#p-668.46(g)(3)","mirrorUrl":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.46","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"34 CFR § 668.46(e)(3) — the follow-up information requirement","publisher":"U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-D/section-668.46#p-668.46(e)(3)","mirrorUrl":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.46","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["violence-first-alert-speed","violence-follow-through"],"compositeOf":["d1","d2"],"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"This verdict composes D1 and D2 under the pinned composite rule rather than declaring new bars.","tests":[],"context":[{"label":"Median gap to first update, complete first alerts (≥5 of 6 elements)","value":20,"n":23,"unit":"min"},{"label":"Median gap to first update, less complete first alerts","value":42,"n":43,"unit":"min"}],"verdict":"MIXED","verdictSentence":"Composite of D1 (MIXED) and D2 (CONSISTENT) under the pinned rule (not testable if any input is; consistent if all are; tension if any is; otherwise mixed) → MIXED.","plannerTakeaway":["“Send fast, then follow up” is a sequence, not a trade. The archive gives no support to treating a thin first message as a down payment on a fast second one: in the current sample where both are measurable, less complete first alerts got slower first updates, not faster ones (medians beside this verdict; small samples).","Plan the pair as one unit: the first alert's template and the first update's trigger belong on the same page of the plan."],"caveats":["The completeness × cadence cross rests on a small two-group sample — its n is published with the context metrics above — and is context, not a tested claim."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d8","short":"Use redundant channels","citeShort":"IHE EOP Guide (2013)","quote":"Federal planning guidance for higher education directs institutions to plan redundant means of alerting — multiple communication methods, because no single channel reaches everyone during an emergency.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"Guide for Developing High-Quality Emergency Operations Plans for Institutions of Higher Education","publisher":"U.S. Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, HHS; FEMA; FBI (June 2013)","url":"https://rems.ed.gov/docs/IHE_Guide_508C.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://rems.ed.gov/docs/IHE_Guide_508C.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"IPAWS Best Practices Guide","publisher":"Federal Emergency Management Agency","url":"https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-best-practices-guide.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_ipaws-best-practices-guide.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["violence-channel-floor"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":{"reason":"The archive records the channel each preserved message traveled, not the fan-out of the send: a case preserved as one SMS may have been a five-channel send documented once. The single-channel share below is therefore a preservation floor, and a floor cannot test a redundancy requirement in either direction."},"thresholdRationale":null,"tests":[],"context":[{"label":"Cases preserving exactly one channel","value":71,"n":1062,"unit":"pct"},{"label":"Cases documenting three or more","value":2,"n":1062,"unit":"pct"},{"label":"Cases with a WEA/IPAWS message","value":2,"n":1062,"unit":"count"}],"verdict":"NOT TESTABLE","verdictSentence":"The archive records the channel each preserved message traveled, not the fan-out of the send: a case preserved as one SMS may have been a five-channel send documented once. The single-channel share below is therefore a preservation floor, and a floor cannot test a redundancy requirement in either direction.","plannerTakeaway":["Plan channels by failure mode, not by count: opt-in SMS misses visitors and move-in week; email misses the quad; sirens carry no detail. The richest archived records show the pairing doctrine intends — SMS plus sirens, PA, or WEA.","The preserved record almost never shows WEA — a floor, like every channel count here — but whatever the preservation gap hides, WEA origination authority is arranged before the emergency or not at all."],"caveats":["Single-channel shares overstate single-channel practice by an unknowable margin — which is exactly why this claim carries no verdict."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"},{"id":"d9","short":"Communicate the end","citeShort":"IHE EOP Guide (2013)","quote":"Planning doctrine treats the emergency's end as a communication event of its own: tell the community when the threat has passed and what happens next. Recovery begins with an explicit all-clear.","quoteKind":"paraphrase","quoteSource":{"title":"Guide for Developing High-Quality Emergency Operations Plans for Institutions of Higher Education","publisher":"U.S. Departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, HHS; FEMA; FBI (June 2013)","url":"https://rems.ed.gov/docs/IHE_Guide_508C.pdf","mirrorUrl":"https://web.archive.org/web/2026/https://rems.ed.gov/docs/IHE_Guide_508C.pdf","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"},"secondarySources":[{"title":"34 CFR § 668.46(e)(3) — the follow-up information requirement","publisher":"U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR)","url":"https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-668/subpart-D/section-668.46#p-668.46(e)(3)","mirrorUrl":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/668.46","accessedDate":"2026-07-06"}],"findingIds":["violence-follow-through"],"compositeOf":null,"notTestable":null,"thresholdRationale":"Ninety percent would show closure as a norm of the record; sixty percent or below would show the record routinely ending mid-emergency. The documentation caveat cuts both ways — an absent all-clear may be preservation loss, which is why the tension bar sits low.","tests":[{"label":"Violent-threat cases documenting an explicit all-clear","metric":"violence-follow-through.allClearPct","unit":"pct","consistentIf":{"op":">=","value":90},"tensionIf":{"op":"<=","value":60},"minN":300,"computedValue":75,"n":1062,"outcome":"neutral"}],"context":[{"label":"Median first alert → all-clear","value":110,"n":233,"unit":"min"}],"verdict":"MIXED","verdictSentence":"Violent-threat cases documenting an explicit all-clear: consistent if ≥ 90%, tension if ≤ 60% — computed 75% (n=1062) → clears neither bar. 0 of 1 test consistent, 0 in tension, 1 clearing neither pre-declared bar → MIXED.","plannerTakeaway":["Script the all-clear with the same care as the first alert: what was found, what is lifted, where to get help. It is the cheapest message in the sequence and the one that formally releases thousands of people from a protective action.","Archive your own messages. Where the public record ends without an all-clear — as it does in a substantial share of violent-threat cases — a preservation gap is indistinguishable from a communication gap, and a published institutional alert archive is what lets the record close at all."],"caveats":["An absent all-clear is a documentation gap, not proof none was sent; the tested share measures how often the public record closes the loop."],"searchHref":"/search/?type=violent-threat"}]}