The 24-hour CRA early warning is stage one, not the end of the fact review. Article 14 puts it before a fuller notice within 72 hours. That next notice gives the required facts then on hand.

This order matters while the team still tests scope, attack path, harm, or response steps. Manage doubt as a fact. Do not turn a weak lead into truth. Do not hide a known gap.

Separate four kinds of content

Mark each draft claim as a seen fact, a view based on proof, an unchecked report, or unknown. Link seen facts and views to their proof. Give each unknown an owner and next check time.

The warning record should still name the event, known product scope, and awareness time. It should state why the legal trigger was treated as met. If proof does not support a detail, say so in the work record. Do not guess.

Use an uncertainty ledger

Create one row for each key gap. Record the question, why it matters now, proof checked, owner, next source, and review time. Mark it unknown, in dispute, or waiting for proof. “To be checked” with no owner is not useful.

Keep a missing fact apart from one in dispute. A missing product version needs a focused proof search. A disputed attack sign needs both views and their source records kept clear for the choice owner.

Draft only what can be approved

Build the warning from short claims linked to the fact list. If a source supports only a range, use a range. If a named outside party made the claim, name that source inside the firm. Do not present it as the maker’s own finding.

Keep the legal trigger choice apart from writing the form. Give the filing person the approved trigger, awareness time, known scope, and open facts. They should not infer the duty to report from a half-done draft.

Carry corrections forward

At the 72-hour stage, compare the current check with the early warning. Mark what was proved, fixed, narrowed, or left open. Keep the first claim and reason for change. A later peer can then follow how the proof grew.

After stage one is filed, lock the approved words and end proof. Continue the fact review in a new work copy. If a fact changes, link the new proof. State if it fixes the old claim or adds detail not known then.

Before the next handoff, have a reviewer check the facts still unknown. Do not review only complete parts. A gap that may change the product, track, awareness time, or risk step needs a named higher owner.

This method does not replace the site rules or legal review. It helps the team meet an early stage while the code review goes on.

Continue this workflow with the 24-hour early-warning workflow and the staged evidence trail.