Issue Log Tracker

What it is

The Issue Log Tracker is a risk assessment and tracking system that sits between detection (from your monitoring brief) and action (your response protocol). When you spot something that might become a problem—a complaint gaining traction, an internal incident becoming visible externally, or a stakeholder concern hardening—you log it here to assess severity and decide what to do.

Rather than treating every issue the same way, this framework categorises by escalation trajectory and impact. An issue that’s currently low-volume but trending upwards gets different handling than one that’s high-volume but stable. Tracking escalation velocity (how fast it’s growing) matters as much as current volume.

This template is especially useful for organisations managing multiple stakeholder groups, high-stakes issues, or regulatory visibility. It prevents decision paralysis—you either have processes for managing each issue level, or you know you need to build them. It also creates an audit trail: which issues did you track, when did you escalate, who decided on what response, and what was the outcome?

When to use it

Use this template when:

• A monitoring brief flags something that needs deeper tracking beyond weekly rhythm
• An issue is early-stage but shows escalation signals (growing social mentions, influencer pickup, media interest)
• You need to decide whether to activate crisis response or manage through standard comms channels
• You’re tracking multiple issues simultaneously and need prioritisation framework
• You want accountability: documented proof that you assessed risks and made decisions
• There’s internal debate about how serious a situation is (shared tracking brings clarity)

Don’t use this template when:

• You’re managing active crisis (use crisis protocol; this is for pre-crisis assessment)
• You’re tracking routine business issues that don’t have reputational/stakeholder dimension
• You have only one issue and no escalation risk (over-engineered for that scale)
• You need immediate, real-time response (this is better for daily/weekly assessment cycle)

Inputs needed

• Initial issue alert or observation (where did you hear it, what happened)
• Baseline data: current volume of mentions, sentiment, stakeholder impact
• Historical context: has this happened before, did it escalate previously
• Stakeholder mapping: who’s affected, who has influence over perception
• Plausible escalation scenarios (if this gets worse, what does worse look like)
• Decision-maker contact (who needs to approve escalation response)

---

The template

Issue Log Entry

Issue ID: [YYYYMM-###] Issue name: [Concise, searchable title] Date identified: [Date] Identified by: [Name/team]

---

Issue summary

What happened: [1-2 sentence factual description]

Where it surfaced: [Social media / Media / Internal / Customer / Stakeholder communication]

Stakeholders affected: [Who this impacts: customers, employees, regulators, investors, suppliers, public]

Why it matters: [Why this issue has reputational or operational significance]

---

Current escalation assessment

Dimension	Rating	Evidence
Volume	Low / Medium / High	[Current mentions/reports]
Sentiment	Positive / Neutral / Negative	[Tone of coverage]
Velocity	Stable / Growing / Decreasing	[Trend over last 7 days]
Influence	Low / Medium / High	[Who’s talking about it]
Business impact	Low / Medium / High	[Operational/financial/reputational]
Stakeholder sensitivity	Low / Medium / High	[How much attention key stakeholders paying]

Overall escalation level: [1-5 scale]

• 1 = Monitoring only (no action needed yet)
• 2 = Watch closely (flag in weekly brief, prepare response)
• 3 = Activate standard response (comms outreach, messaging)
• 4 = Escalate to leadership (may need executive visibility)
• 5 = Crisis activation (activate crisis protocol immediately)

---

Escalation trajectory

Plausible scenarios if this escalates:

• Scenario A (likely): [What happens if momentum continues at current pace]
• Scenario B (possible): [What happens if a catalyst intensifies this]
• Scenario C (worst case): [What happens if multiple factors combine]

Velocity signal: Is this growing exponentially, linearly, or plateauing? [Describe trend]

Catalyst watch: What could accelerate this? [List potential triggers to monitor for]

---

Stakeholder mapping

Stakeholder group	Current awareness	Sentiment	Influence	Action needed
[Group 1: e.g., Customers]	[High/Medium/Low]	[+/Neutral/-]	[High/Medium/Low]	[What comms action needed]
[Group 2: e.g., Employees]	[High/Medium/Low]	[+/Neutral/-]	[High/Medium/Low]	[What comms action needed]
[Group 3: e.g., Investors]	[High/Medium/Low]	[+/Neutral/-]	[High/Medium/Low]	[What comms action needed]
[Group 4: e.g., Regulators]	[High/Medium/Low]	[+/Neutral/-]	[High/Medium/Low]	[What comms action needed]

---

Response decision

Current action level: [None / Monitor / Standard comms / Escalated response / Crisis mode]

Who approved this decision: [Name, date]

Rationale for decision: [Why this action level is appropriate given current situation]

Comms actions activated:

• [Action 1: e.g., Draft statement, prepare spokesperson]
• [Action 2: e.g., Brief internal stakeholders]
• [Action 3: e.g., Activate social monitoring alerts]

Who owns each action: [Assign responsibility and deadline]

---

Tracking and escalation triggers

Current tracking frequency: [Daily / 3x weekly / Weekly / As needed]

Escalation triggers—if any of these occur, move to next level:

• Trigger 1: [e.g., Mentions exceed 100 in a day]
• Trigger 2: [e.g., Negative sentiment exceeds 60%]
• Trigger 3: [e.g., Major media publication coverage]
• Trigger 4: [e.g., Regulator inquiry or statement]
• Trigger 5: [e.g., Key stakeholder public criticism]

De-escalation criteria—when can we stand down:

• Criterion 1: [e.g., Volume drops below 20 mentions for 7 days]
• Criterion 2: [e.g., Sentiment trend stabilises at positive]
• Criterion 3: [e.g., No new catalyst events for 14 days]

---

Update log

Date	Update	Escalation level change	Decision made	Owner
[Date]	[What changed: new data, media mention, stakeholder feedback]	[↑/→/↓]	[What we decided to do]	[Name]

---

Lessons learned (completed issues only)

Did this escalate as predicted? [Yes / No / Partially]

What we got right: [What did our assessment nail]

What surprised us: [What did we miss or misjudge]

For next time: [How will this inform our assessment of similar issues]

---

AI prompt

Base prompt

You are a risk and issue management specialist. I'm going to provide you with information about a potential issue that we've identified. Help me assess the escalation risk, determine what action level is appropriate, and identify triggers that would require us to escalate response.

Issue information provided:
[Paste: what happened, where it surfaced, who's talking about it, stakeholder impact]

Current data:
[Paste: mentions/reports from last 7 days, sentiment breakdown, which stakeholders are engaged]

Historical context (if applicable):
[Paste: has this happened before, how did it unfold previously]

Please help me complete the Issue Log Tracker by:
1. Assessing current escalation level on 1–5 scale with evidence
2. Mapping stakeholder positions and what each group needs from us
3. Identifying 3–5 plausible escalation scenarios and triggers to watch for
4. Recommending appropriate action level: monitor only, prepare response, activate standard response, escalate to leadership, or crisis mode
5. Suggesting specific monitoring frequency and escalation triggers

Make this realistic to our situation, not generic. Help me think through what could go wrong and what we'd need to decide if it does.

Prompt variations

Variation 1: Escalation assessment only

I have an issue log we created three days ago at escalation level 2 (watch closely). Here's the update on data from the last 72 hours:

[Paste new data: volume, sentiment, who's engaged, any new catalyst]

Assess whether this has escalated, stabilised, or improved. Should we:
- Stay at level 2 (monitoring)
- Move to level 3 (activate standard response)
- Move to level 4 (escalate to leadership)
- Move to level 5 (crisis mode)

Explain your recommendation in plain language suitable for a leadership brief.

Variation 2: Scenario planning

We're tracking an issue that's currently at escalation level 2, but we want to prepare for "what if". Help me think through three realistic scenarios:

Current situation: [Describe issue]

Likely scenario: If current trend continues, what happens in 1–2 weeks?
Possible scenario: What catalyst could cause this to spike suddenly?
Worst case: What's the combination of factors that would force us to crisis mode?

For each scenario, tell me:
- What data would signal this is happening
- What stakeholder group this would impact most
- What response we'd need to activate
- How much time we'd have to react

This is planning, not prediction—help me prepare for possibilities.

Variation 3: Stakeholder-focused assessment

I'm tracking this issue, but I'm uncertain about stakeholder impact. Help me:

1. Map which stakeholder groups this affects (customers, employees, investors, regulators, public)
2. For each group, assess: how aware are they, what's their sentiment, how much influence do they have
3. Identify which group's response to this issue is most important to our business
4. Recommend what comms action each group needs from us

Issue details: [Paste issue description and current data]

Use a stakeholder mapping framework that helps me see where we have the most critical engagement gap.

Variation 4: Early warning escalation

This is an early-stage issue that hasn't escalated yet, but we're seeing escalation signals. Help me:

Current status: [Small volume, but trending up] / [Low sentiment currently, but growing criticism] / [Niche audience now, but influencers picking it up]

Identify:
- What would indicate this is accelerating (specific escalation triggers)
- At what point should we move from monitoring to response
- Early actions we could take now to prevent escalation (before it requires crisis response)
- How frequently we should check this issue (daily, 3x weekly, etc.)

Help me set up triggers that would tell us "escalate now" clearly.

Variation 5: Crisis readiness check

This issue is at escalation level 4 (escalated response) and we're monitoring for potential crisis activation. Help me prepare by:

1. Clarifying what specific data/events would trigger movement to level 5 (crisis mode)
2. Drafting holding statements or core messages we might need if this escalates
3. Identifying which executives need to be on standby
4. Outlining 48-hour activation plan if this becomes crisis

This is preparation, not activation. Help me be ready without overreacting.

---

Human review checklist

• Escalation level justified: Rating on 1–5 scale is defensible based on evidence provided (could someone from leadership review this and agree?)
• Stakeholder mapping complete: All groups with material interest in this issue are identified and assessed
• Triggers specific and measurable: Escalation triggers aren’t vague (“things get worse”) but specific (“mentions exceed 150 daily”, “negative sentiment exceeds 65%”)
• Scenarios plausible: The three escalation scenarios aren’t alarmist but realistic—they’re things that could happen based on current trajectory
• Velocity accurately assessed: The assessment of whether this is growing, stable, or declining is based on time-series data (weekly trends) not single data point
• Decision responsibility clear: Someone has signed off on the action level decision and rationale is documented
• No personality bias: Assessment isn’t influenced by personal views on the issue, only business risk
• Catalyst watch specific: If we’re saying “monitor for catalyst”, we’ve named what catalyst we’re watching for
• De-escalation criteria realistic: We’ve set clear conditions for standing down (not just “if it goes away”)
• Update log maintained: For active issues, log has been updated at least weekly with any changes in data or decision

---

Example output

Issue Log Entry

Issue ID: 202601-042 Issue name: Supply chain supplier labour practices allegation Date identified: 23 January 2026 Identified by: Social media monitoring team

---

Issue summary

What happened: Environmental NGO published report alleging labour rights violations at one of our Tier 2 suppliers in Southeast Asia. They named us as a customer.

Where it surfaced: NGO website, Twitter (7,800 followers), picked up by ethical investment blog

Stakeholders affected: Investors (particularly ESG-focused), customers in sustainable/ethical segment, employees (especially values-driven staff), general public (if media picks up)

Why it matters: We’ve positioned sustainability as core brand value. If labour practices don’t align with claims, reputational damage is material. Investors with ESG mandates could divest.

---

Current escalation assessment

Dimension	Rating	Evidence
Volume	Medium	127 mentions on Twitter in 48 hours; limited mainstream media pickup yet
Sentiment	Negative	78% negative, 18% neutral, 4% positive
Velocity	Growing	Mentions +45% from day 1 to day 2
Influence	Medium	NGO credible, but not massive reach; ethical investment blog has relevant audience
Business impact	High	Direct to our brand positioning on sustainability
Stakeholder sensitivity	High	Investors specifically watch labour practices; values-driven customers care

Overall escalation level: 3 (Activate standard response)

---

Escalation trajectory

Scenario A (likely): Social conversation stays elevated for 5–7 days, gradually fades as news cycle moves. Media doesn’t pick up unless we mishandle response. Issue contained with standard comms response.

Scenario B (possible): Mainstream media discovers story (ethical business journalist interest). Reaches 50–100K impressions. Forces statement from leadership, investigation of supplier. Requires escalated response.

Scenario C (worst case): Major financial press (FT, Bloomberg) runs story questioning our due diligence. Investor conference calls discuss. Activist organisations call for divestment. Requires crisis-level response and operational action (supplier audit/remediation).

Velocity signal: Strong initial acceleration (day 1 to day 2: +45%), but growth rate usually moderates by day 3–4 if no new catalyst.

Catalyst watch: NGO publishing evidence of reputational issues at other suppliers we work with; major customer public statement on labour concerns; investor group statement questioning our supply chain practices.

---

Stakeholder mapping

Stakeholder group	Current awareness	Sentiment	Influence	Action needed
ESG Investors	Medium (niche awareness, building)	Negative	High	Brief on investigation plan, commitment to remediation timeline
Ethical consumers	Low (social media aware, not broad)	Negative where aware	Medium	Monitor for amplification; prepare transparent supply chain response
Employees	Low (internal news spreading)	Mixed (values-driven staff concerned)	Medium (internal morale)	Internal email clarifying our investigation and values
Mainstream media	Low (not covered yet)	Not yet engaged	High if engaged	Prepare proactive statement; make supplier audit transparent
NGO sector	High (originated here)	Negative	Medium-High	Wait for response to our investigation; don’t engage defensively

---

Response decision

Current action level: 3 (Activate standard response)

Who approved this decision: Head of Communications (26 Jan, 10am)

Rationale: Issue is clearly negative and affecting our core brand positioning. However, current volume and reach don’t yet justify crisis activation—standard comms response is appropriate. If media picks up significantly or volume spikes, will escalate to level 4.

Comms actions activated:

• Prepare statement for leadership sign-off (acknowledging allegation, committing to investigation, timeline for findings)
• Brief investor relations on response plan
• Internal comms: email to all staff explaining situation and our response
• Research supplier in question; brief legal on potential remediation pathway
• Monitor social sentiment and mentions 3x daily; flag if escalation triggers hit

---

Tracking and escalation triggers

Current tracking frequency: 3x daily (escalation risk means regular monitoring)

Escalation triggers—if any occur, move to level 4 (escalate to leadership):

• FT, Bloomberg, or major business journalist publishes story (signifies broader legitimacy)
• Mentions exceed 500 daily for 3 consecutive days (signals sustained momentum)
• A second NGO or activist group amplifies allegation (multiplies credibility)
• Customer group publicly calls for supply chain investigation (stakeholder risk materialises)
• Investor group releases statement questioning our labour practices (capital risk)

De-escalation criteria:

• Volume drops below 50 daily mentions for 7 consecutive days
• We’ve announced investigation findings and remediation plan (news hook defused)
• No new catalyst events for 21 days
• Sentiment stabilises at neutral (criticism acknowledged but addressed)

---

Update log

Date	Update	Escalation level	Decision made	Owner
23 Jan	NGO report published, 127 mentions day 1	Start at 2	Move to level 3 (activate standard response)	Head of Comms
24 Jan	Mentions +45%, ethical investor blog amplified	Level 3	Maintain level 3; brief IR on investor questions	Monitoring team
25 Jan	FT has picked up story for possible coverage	→ Level 4	Escalate to leadership; prepare executive statement	Head of Comms

---

Related templates

• Weekly Monitoring Brief – This is where issues first surface; escalate to this log for deeper tracking
• Crisis Communications Protocol – If this hits escalation level 5, activate full crisis response
• Stakeholder Mapping Template – Expand stakeholder analysis for complex multi-group issues
• Simple Comms Dashboard – Track issue metrics visually across multiple issues
• Internal Comms Response – Prepare employee messaging while managing external issue

---

Tips for success

Separate assessment from emotion It’s easy to catastrophise a negative issue or minimise one that contradicts your values. Use the escalation framework objectively: if volume, velocity, and stakeholder importance are factual, let the data guide escalation, not your reaction. Document your reasoning so it’s defensible under scrutiny.

Track velocity, not just volume An issue with 200 mentions today that grew from 10 yesterday is more dangerous than an issue with 200 mentions today that’s been steady for a week. Escalation velocity signals whether this is a trend or a spike. Use day-over-day or week-over-week percentage change.

Name your catalysts Generic “something could happen” thinking is paralyzing. Be specific: “If major media publishes, move to level 4”; “If second NGO amplifies, move to level 4.” Specific triggers prevent both over-escalation and under-escalation. Your team knows exactly what to watch for.

Stakeholder groups aren’t monolithic Investors aren’t all ESG-focused; employees aren’t all values-driven. The issue log should identify which subset of each stakeholder group is most at risk and what they need to hear. This prevents over-generalisation and guides targeted messaging.

Review closed issues for pattern learning When an issue de-escalates or is resolved, review your assessment: Did it escalate as predicted? What surprised you? What triggered acceleration or de-escalation? Build institutional memory so your next assessment is better. The issue log is both a tool and a learning archive.

---

Common pitfalls

Confusing current state with trajectory An issue that’s currently low-volume but accelerating rapidly is riskier than one that’s higher-volume but stable. Don’t get anchored to absolute numbers. A 50% week-on-week increase in mentions is an escalation signal even if the absolute number is still small.

Making judgement calls without data “This feels serious” isn’t escalation assessment. Base levels on objective measures: volume (how many mentions), sentiment (what are they saying), velocity (is it growing), influence (who’s saying it), business impact (why does it matter). If you can’t point to data, you don’t have escalation evidence.

Setting escalation triggers you won’t meet “If mentions exceed 1,000” sounds good, but if your issue never reaches that and you have no plan for how to act at level 3, you’re not actually escalating—you’re delaying decisions. Set triggers you’ll actually hit and that meaningfully indicate a transition in response intensity.

Stakeholder mapping that’s too broad “Customers”, “investors”, “public” aren’t useful. Who specifically within each? Large customer vs SME customer? Long-term vs activist investor? Mainstream media vs niche blogger? The more specific your stakeholder map, the more useful your action decisions.

Forgetting to de-escalate Issues can fade; they don’t require sustained crisis response forever. If you don’t set clear de-escalation criteria, your team burns out managing “crises” that are actually dormant. Be explicit: when can we stand down, stop daily monitoring, and move back to weekly brief tracking?