[CAP] Suggestion: Decrease delay/milling by increasing message trust

[Henry Lahore]

I became aware of CAP from the article in Wired Magazine
As a potential distributor of CAP messages I want to suggest an
improvement for CAP 1.2
My suggested improvement would allow a person to immediately react to a
single CAP message.
Yes, I realize that a swarm of CAP 1.1 messages would slowly generate
trust, 
but a person would have to:
   1) Receive messages from several information sources
   2) Have time to listen to and understand the messages
  
I believe that a delayed reaction to some CAP emergency messages is not
acceptable: tsunamis, earthquakes, chemical spills, ...

I want a person to get an ENDORSED message which causes him to
immediately react - without milling around

Endorsement of an original message could be made by:
  1) Additional Official information sources and/or
  2) Concurrence by people receiving a related CAP message
       (I concur: There is a tornado, fire, chemical spill, earthquake,
...)

CAP 1.2 should also allow for some form of negative endorsement
   (I do NOT see the tornado, fire, chemical spill, etc. described in
the CAP message)

While a CAP 1.1 message could possibly be a false alarm, an endorsed
message would have a far lower probability of being a false alarm

I will be providing emergency alert watches which will filter CAP
messages based on the wearer's GPS location and altitude. Each emergency
alert watch wearer could respond to (vote on) a received alert- thus
allowing agreement/disagreement with the original message. (A few quick
features of the emergency watches: low cost; will also alert people to
traffic, weather, etc.; provide walkie-talkie type communication at all
times: before during and after an emergency; will allow people to be in
touch everywhere - just 4 transmitter will provide communication to the
entire continental US)

The following are some of the scenarios which could occur in CAPS 1.2
1) Original CAP MESSAGE is endorsed
   1A) Initial CAP message received by many people 
       at the designated location
   1B) Many people concur with the initial message, 
       and send acknowledgments of its truth.
   1C) Additional official sources endorse the initial message 
       by sending related messages
   1D) UPDATE CAP message includes concurrences and endorsements, 
       thus instilling trust in the message by subsequent recipients

2) Original CAP MESSAGE is rejected
   2A) Initial CAP message received by people at the designated location

   2B) Majority of respondents DO NOT AGREE with the message 
        - e.g. they do not see a forest fire, chemical spill, .....
         the original message may have errored in location, time, type,
etc.
   2C) Additional official sources send messages which DO NOT AGREE with
the original message  (it appears to me that only the original sender
can send msg type = "Error"
   2D) UPDATE message cancels the original message

3) Mixed reaction to original CAP MESSAGE

I realize that the mixed reaction scenario is tricky and requires a lot
of discussion/experimentation to get it right. 
However, I believe that the benefit of quick reactions in an emergency
out-weight problems.

Henry Lahore 206-498-6004