Why Some Incident Plans Fail in the First Hour A scenario of realisation, reaction and control
The moment something feels wrong, it's rarely borne out of any certainty.
The moment something feels wrong, it's rarely borne out of any certainty.
An alert appears that does not fit a known pattern, and a system behaves in a way that feels off, but not yet alarming.
Someone pauses, looks again, and realises this may not be routine. At this point, the incident has not escalated. What happens next depends less on the alert itself and more on how that moment of uncertainty is handled.
As concern spreads, people are notified quickly. Messages are sent, calls are made, and attention shifts. Information, however, lags behind. Details are still emerging, and early assumptions fill the gaps.
This is where plans are meant to help, but in practice, they often struggle to keep pace with the speed at which concern moves through the organisation.
"The first hour doesn’t fail because plans are missing, but because judgment is tested before clarity arrives"
Some teams respond by narrowing focus; they stabilise systems, verify signals, and limit speculation. Others react more broadly, escalating immediately in case something is missed.
Neither response is inherently wrong. The difference lies in how calm or panic influences decisions. A calm response creates space to think. Panic compresses options and accelerates escalation.
Incident plans typically describe actions to take once an incident is confirmed. In this scenario, confirmation does not yet exist. Teams are deciding whether they are dealing with noise, a contained issue, or something larger.
Plans offer steps, but they rarely guide how to decide when the situation is unclear. This gap becomes visible within minutes.
Senior leaders often become aware of potential incidents before facts are established. They want to understand risk, impact, and next steps. The questions are reasonable. The answers are not yet available.
Calm, measured updates help maintain confidence, while speculation or over-caution can create pressure that shapes the rest of the response.
As uncertainty persists, pressure builds. Teams may take defensive actions to avoid blame rather than to manage risk. Systems are shut down pre-emptively. Communication becomes guarded.
These choices can feel safe in the moment. Later, they're often identified as the point where disruption increased unnecessarily.
In contrast, responses that prioritise calm focus on establishing facts, even when incomplete. Decisions are framed as provisional. Authority is clear, and escalation is deliberate.
This does not remove risk, but it prevents uncertainty from driving the response.
By the end of the first hour, the incident’s trajectory is largely set. Either confidence has been established, or doubt has taken hold. Subsequent actions build on this foundation.
When reviewing incidents, teams often trace outcomes back to these early moments. Attention centres on how realisation was handled, how reaction was shaped, and whether calm or panic dominated.
The lesson is rarely that plans were wrong, it's that the first hour demands guidance on judgment and control, not just procedures, when theory gives way to reality.
This series is featured in our community because it reflects conversations increasingly happening among senior security and risk leaders.
Much of the industry focuses on tools and threats with far less attention given to how confidence is formed, tested, and sustained under scrutiny. The perspective explored here addresses that gap without promoting solutions or prescribing action.
Core to Cloud is referenced because its work centres on operational reality rather than maturity claims. Their focus on decision-making, evidence, and validation aligns with the purpose of this publication: helping leaders ask better questions before pressure forces answers.
When a cyber incident is contained, it is often viewed as a success, it feels “successful”.
Building confidence without triggering disruption
When confidence dissolves under scrutiny
What insurers, regulators, and boards expect after an incident
What cyber readiness looks like from the inside
Operational drag, trust erosion, and regulatory aftermath
Shadow usage, data leakage and invisible risk
Control, confidence, and accountability at scale
Why Security Incidents Are Shaped More By People Than Technology
Assumptions, dependencies, and uncomfortable timelines
Most cyber incidents don’t begin as crises
Let us know what you think about the article.