---
name: Crisis PR & Sentiment War Room
description: For a sensitive redesign, security incident, or pricing change, pre-rehearses the negative community sentiment and potential PR crises before launch, then drafts a crisis-response statement and support FAQ that balance legal compliance, genuine sincerity, and a concrete remediation offer. Every statement is a draft for legal and PR review before publishing, never a cleared public communication. For comms leads, founders, and support leads.
audience: comms · founder · support lead
---

# Crisis PR & Sentiment War Room

## What this is

A method for rehearsing the backlash before it arrives. Ahead of a sensitive change — a disruptive redesign, a security incident disclosure, or a pricing change — it maps the negative sentiment the community is likely to voice, the specific grievances that will surface, and the PR crises that could escalate from them. It then drafts the response kit: a holding statement and a support FAQ written to hold three things in balance at once — legal compliance, genuine sincerity (not corporate deflection), and a concrete remediation offer — so the team is ready with a considered reply instead of a defensive scramble at 2am.

## What this is NOT

Not a cleared public statement: everything it drafts is a draft for legal and PR review before anything is published — a war-room rehearsal, not the final word. Not a substitute for breach obligations: a security incident carries breach-notification duties (GDPR, US state laws, sector rules) that are surfaced and routed to counsel, not resolved here. Not a spin operation — the method never advises concealing, downplaying, or delaying disclosure of a material incident, and honesty with the affected community is treated as the non-negotiable baseline.

## Method

1. **Name the trigger and the stakes.** State precisely what is changing or what happened and who is affected — the response to a redesign, an incident, and a price rise are not the same, and pretending otherwise reads as canned.
2. **Rehearse the sentiment.** Anticipate the specific grievances the community will raise, in their words, including the ones that are fair — a war-room that only rehearses easy objections loses to the hard ones.
3. **Rank the escalation paths.** Score which grievances could spiral into a PR crisis by reach and severity (both labelled estimates), so preparation goes where the real risk is.
4. **Establish the facts first.** Pin down what is known, unknown, and still being investigated before drafting — a statement that outruns the facts becomes the second crisis.
5. **Draft the statement — sincere and compliant.** Write a holding statement that acknowledges the impact plainly, avoids admissions that pre-empt legal review, and offers a concrete next step; mark it a draft for counsel.
6. **Draft the support FAQ.** Prepare the frontline answers to the questions that will actually be asked, consistent with the statement, so support and comms speak with one voice.
7. **Build the remediation offer.** Specify what affected users are actually offered (fix timeline, credit, opt-out, data-protection steps) — sincerity without remedy is an apology no one accepts.
8. **Route for review and set the disclosure line.** Send every draft to legal and PR before publishing, confirm breach-notification obligations with counsel, and never advise concealing a material incident.

## Quality bar

Trigger and affected parties named precisely · community sentiment rehearsed including the fair grievances · escalation paths ranked by reach and severity (labelled estimates) · facts established before drafting · statement sincere, compliant, and marked draft-for-review · support FAQ consistent with the statement · remediation offer concrete · every draft routed to legal/PR and breach obligations confirmed with counsel.

## Guardrails & escalation

This method rehearses and drafts; it does not clear or publish. Every statement and FAQ is a draft for legal and PR review before it goes public — a considered starting point, not an approved communication. A security incident carries breach-notification obligations (GDPR Art. 33/34, US state breach laws, sector rules) that are surfaced and routed to counsel, not decided here. The method will not help conceal, minimise, or delay disclosure of a material incident; escalation reach and severity are labelled estimates, and legal, regulatory, and disclosure decisions belong to qualified counsel.

## References

- Catalogue: https://edwson.com/consumer-design-system.html · Contracts: https://edwson.com/cds/components.json · Agent brief: https://edwson.com/cds/AGENTS.md
- Related within this kit: the game-theory counter-strategy, competitive-analysis, and consent-respecting personalisation skills. Breach-notification and disclosure decisions are routed to counsel; this method rehearses the response, it does not approve it.