Dear National Emergency Management Agency,

Under the Official Information Act 1982, I request the following information relating to the Emergency Mobile Alerts (EMAs) issued on 30–31 July. Please interpret “records” to include emails, messages, briefings, minutes/notes, incident logs, templates, and any attachments.

A. Mandatory/opt-out/quiet-hours settings
1. Opt-out/quiet mode policy: Has NEMA/DPMC considered providing user-level opt-out (globally or by hazard type) or a “quiet mode” for advisory-level events (e.g., “strong and unusual currents” advisories)? Please provide evaluations, options analyses, minutes, recommendations, and the reasons for any decision to decline.

B. Proportionality during sleeping hours
2. Proportionality test: What internal threshold or public-interest test must be satisfied before sending an EMA during typical sleeping hours where the advice is not materially new (e.g., a reminder)? Please provide any checklists/templates used on 31 July 2025 (06:30).

C. Novelty/duplication
3. Message novelty: Drafts/versions or records showing how NEMA determined the 06:30, 31 July alert added new value versus duplicated the prior alert. If no new value was identified, the rationale for sending regardless.

4. Severity–template binding: Are message templates bound to severity levels (advisory vs watch vs warning) to prevent advisory-level messaging being framed with unnecessarily high urgency? Please provide the template library in force at the time and governance/approval controls.

D. Risk created by the alert itself
5. Risk registers: All risk assessments/risk-register entries identifying potential harms caused by EMA use, including sleep disruption, panic/mass movement, road traffic incidents, 111 call surges, and alert fatigue reducing future compliance; plus any mitigations noted.

6. Incident/near-miss reports: Any incident or near-miss reports attributable to the 30–31 July EMAs (e.g., collisions, coastal self-evacuations, medical device interference, workplace safety events), including any preliminary tallies or summaries if final reports are pending.

E. Channel alternatives and evaluation
7. Channel alternatives: The evaluation comparing EMA versus media/social/web push for advisory-level scenarios (reach, timeliness, expected benefits, and cost/harm trade-offs), including any cost–benefit or harm–benefit analysis used for 30–31 July.

8. Performance KPIs: The KPIs or success metrics used to judge whether the 06:30, 31 July alert achieved objectives (e.g., reduced coastal water use, complaints/false-alarm cost), the KPI framework, and any preliminary evaluation against those KPIs.

⸻

Format & administrative notes
• Please provide information electronically (searchable PDFs or original file formats where practicable).
• If any parts are refused or redacted, please cite the specific grounds and provide a document schedule.
• If any information is more closely held by another agency (e.g., telcos, vendors), please transfer under s14 where appropriate.
• If scope is considered too broad under s18(f), please consult with me to refine rather than refuse.

Yours faithfully,

Narmada