By Ann Marie van den Hurk, Mind The Gap Advisory
CIRCIA compliance and incident response: why decision authority is the missing piece
CIRCIA compliance is moving from preparation to obligation. With the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act’s final rule expected in 2026, organizations across 16 critical infrastructure sectors are mapping their incident response procedures to federal reporting timelines. Most are focused on the right things — notification paths, evidence retention, escalation triggers.
Most are missing the same thing. Decision authority. Not who is in the room when a cyber incident begins. Who is authorized to act.
Expertise and authority are not the same thing
When a cyber incident begins, expertise activates quickly. Security starts working the problem. Legal begins assessing regulatory exposure. Communications starts thinking about the external narrative.
Everyone is doing their job. The response is still stalling.
From inside the room, the freeze does not feel like a freeze. It feels like caution. Like due diligence. Like responsible behavior — gathering information before acting, confirming facts before committing to a position.
What it actually is: expertise without authority.
Each function has deep knowledge of its domain. None of them has been explicitly designated to drive the first decision. So each waits for a signal that it is their moment to move. That signal does not come. Because no one was assigned to give it.
What the freeze actually looks like
An incident is confirmed. The right team assembles. The first decision point arrives — something that requires committing to a course of action before the full picture is clear.
Security wants more data on scope. Legal wants to understand downstream implications before authorizing action. Communications does not want to commit to a position that facts may contradict an hour later.
These are not unreasonable instincts. In isolation, each one reflects sound professional judgment. Collectively, they produce paralysis.
No one is being negligent. No one is avoiding responsibility. Everyone is operating exactly as their professional training instructs — carefully, within the boundaries of their defined role.
The problem is that no one’s defined role includes the authority to break the deadlock. That authority was never explicitly assigned. It was assumed to exist somewhere in the organizational structure. Under pressure, the assumption does not hold.
The Cytactic 2025 Cyber Incident Response Management Report surveyed 480 senior cybersecurity executives including 230 CISOs. 70% said internal misalignment creates more chaos during an incident than the attackers themselves.
The freeze is not a failure of competence. It is the predictable output of a governance system that was never designed for compressed timelines.
CIRCIA compliance exposes the incident response authority gap
The Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act requires organizations operating across 16 critical infrastructure sectors — including financial services, healthcare, energy, and transportation — to report a covered cyber incident to CISA within 72 hours of reasonably believing one has occurred. Ransom payments must be reported within 24 hours.
CISA has targeted 2026 for publication of the final rule, though DHS funding lapses may affect that timeline. PwC notes that compliance obligations could take effect as soon as late 2026. The proposed rule should be treated as the planning baseline now.
The detail that matters most for incident response teams: the 72-hour clock starts when your organization reasonably believes an incident has occurred. Not when the investigation confirms it. Not when leadership reaches alignment. When belief begins.
That means the window for negotiating decision authority during an incident has effectively closed before the incident is confirmed.
Sygnia reviewed major cyber incidents from last year and identified a recurring pattern. Incident response plans defined notification paths but stopped short of clearly assigning decision authority until an incident reached a material risk threshold. The hesitation to escalate was not exceptional. It was the norm.
Under CIRCIA compliance requirements, that hesitation carries regulatory consequences. Failure to report within the required window is not simply an operational misstep. CISA is empowered to issue subpoenas and refer noncompliant organizations to enforcement. For regulated industries, noncompliance creates legal and business consequences beyond the report itself.
Decision authority under speed is a governance capability, not a training problem
The instinct when organizations recognize this gap is to invest in training. More tabletop exercises. Better playbooks. Faster escalation procedures.
These are not wrong investments. But they do not solve the core problem.
Decision authority under speed is not a test of individual capability. It is a test of organizational design. Smart teams still freeze when authority is unclear. The solution is not better people. It is a governance system designed for the condition.
That means answering one question before the pressure arrives: who is authorized to act right now, on incomplete information, and make it stick?
Not who is the most senior person in the room. Not who has the most relevant expertise. Who has been explicitly designated to drive the first decision — and who knows it before the incident begins.
That designation has to be visible before the incident. Once it is not visible, caution and paralysis look identical from inside the room. And a 72-hour CIRCIA compliance clock does not distinguish between the two.
The question to ask before the next incident
If a covered cyber incident began in your organization today, who would make the first decision to act?
Not who would be in the room. Not who would be consulted. Who would decide.
If that answer requires a conversation, the response is already behind. And under CIRCIA compliance requirements, the clock is already running.
Decision authority under speed has to be established before the incident. It cannot be negotiated during one.
The Governance Gap Map is a 90-minute structured session that surfaces exactly where governance has lost ground to operational pressure inside your organization — and where decision authority has become assumed rather than defined. Written finding delivered within 48 hours.
Ann Marie van den Hurk, MSc., APR is the founder of Mind The Gap Advisory and originator of the CrisisOS5™ Framework. She advises CISOs, General Counsel, Chief Risk Officers, and boards on decision authority and executive crisis readiness for the AI era. Based in Newport, Rhode Island — serving organizations in Providence, Boston, Portsmouth, Portland, and Hartford, and across New England, nationally, and globally. mindthegapcyber.com
Frequently asked questions
What is the governance gap in cyber incident response?
The governance gap is the space between what an organization’s team knows how to do and who is authorized to decide to do it. In a cyber incident, expertise activates quickly but decision authority often has not been explicitly assigned. The result is a capable team that stalls at the first decision point because no one’s role includes the authority to break the deadlock.
What does CIRCIA compliance require from incident response teams?
CIRCIA compliance requires covered entities across 16 critical infrastructure sectors to report a substantial cyber incident to CISA within 72 hours of reasonably believing one has occurred, and to report ransomware payments within 24 hours. The final rule is expected in 2026. Incident response teams should treat the proposed rule as the planning baseline now and map their decision authority structure to those reporting timelines before the rule takes effect.
Why does the 72-hour CIRCIA clock create a decision authority problem?
The 72-hour clock starts when an organization reasonably believes a covered incident has occurred — not when the investigation confirms it. That means organizations must be able to act on incomplete information from the first moments of an incident. If decision authority has not been established in advance, the window for alignment closes before it opens.
What is decision authority under speed?
Decision authority under speed is the organizational capability to designate who can act on incomplete information during a cyber incident and make that decision stick. It is a governance design problem, not a training problem. It must be established before an incident arrives — it cannot be negotiated during one.
How is decision authority different from seniority?
Seniority and designated decision authority are not the same thing. The most senior person in the room may not be the person explicitly designated to drive the first decision. Without that explicit designation, every function in the room has a professional reason to wait — and collectively, that produces paralysis even in experienced, capable teams.