To stress-test a crisis holding statement, paste the draft, everything you actually know so far with the source of each fact, the versions going to customers, employees, the board, and any regulator, and the time the statement must go out. Then instruct Pingpong to read the draft as a hostile reporter and as an affected customer would. Ask it to mark every sentence that claims more than you know, every promise about cause or timing you may not keep, every place the audience versions disagree, and whether the statement tells people what to do and when they will hear more.
This page is for chief executives and communications leads drafting the first short message in an incident, while the facts are still incomplete. It covers that one message. To rehearse the whole incident with your team in advance, see run a crisis tabletop before the real incident tests the plan. Executive starting points live under Pingpong for executives. Legal and regulatory notification obligations belong with counsel.
Five parts of a holding statement, and how each goes wrong
- What happened. Plain words about what you have confirmed. It goes wrong when "isolated" or "minor" appears before anyone has counted.
- What you do not know yet. One plain sentence. Leaving it out invites readers to assume the worst or the best.
- What you are doing. Concrete steps under way. Naming a cause or a supplier at this stage is a common mistake.
- What affected people should do. The part readers need most, and the part drafts most often leave out.
- When the next update comes. A specific time you can meet, with an owner for the facts behind it.
A worked example
This example is illustrative and does not describe a customer. A 230-person smart home device company learns on a Thursday morning that some units of one charging dock have overheated in customers' homes. Reporters have started asking. The communications lead has a draft that must go out by noon.
The draft says the company is aware of isolated reports, there is no risk to customers, the cause has been traced to a third-party component, a fix will be available within 48 hours, and customer safety is the top priority.
The chief executive pastes the draft, the support ticket count, the engineering team's notes, the customer email, the internal message to employees, and the note prepared for the board, and asks Pingpong to stress-test it.
A useful pass finds that support has logged 14 overheating reports, which a reporter could learn from customers and set against "isolated." Nothing in the materials supports "no risk." The engineering notes list a supplier component and a firmware setting as possible causes, so naming the supplier is premature and could create a dispute. The 48-hour fix has no basis in the notes. The statement never tells customers what to do.
The versions disagree too. The customer email asks people to unplug the dock as a precaution, which contradicts "no risk." The employee message says engineering suspects firmware. The board note calls the issue minor. The pass flags product safety reporting as a question for counsel, who will know whether a regulator must be notified and on what timeline.
The revised statement reads:
We have received reports that some units of our charging dock have overheated during use. We are investigating the cause with our engineering team and component suppliers. Until we know more, please unplug the dock and contact our support team, who can help with a replacement charging option. We will post our next update here by 6 p.m. Eastern on Friday.
The customer email and employee message now use the same facts. The board receives the statement with the ticket count and both candidate causes. Counsel takes the reporting question, and the head of engineering owns the facts for Friday's update.
A request you can copy
Below are a draft holding statement, what we know so far with the source of each fact, and the versions going to customers, employees, our board, and any regulator. Read the draft as a hostile reporter and as an affected customer. Mark every claim that goes beyond our facts, every commitment on cause or timing we may not meet, every disagreement between versions, and anything missing from the five parts: what happened, what we do not know, what we are doing, what people should do, and when the next update comes. Mark legal notification questions for counsel.
How Pingpong runs the stress test
The web review app sends your request through several models in order. Each later model receives the original request and every earlier answer, with instructions to assess the work so far. Recheck each flagged fact with the person who owns it before you publish. For the steps inside the app, see running your first review.
What a model can't stress-test
A model knows only the facts you paste. It does not know what customers are posting, what reporters have heard, or what your obligations are. Counsel owns notification requirements, and the people closest to the incident own the facts.
When the incident reaches the board, see war-game a decision before the board meeting. More guides live under work decisions before you commit.