If you're going to publish information that people might rely upon, especially in an emergency, you're taking on the responsibility of maintaining the accuracy of that information, including possibly taking on the responsibility of ensuring stale data is retracted.
The greater the details, the greater the burden. People naturally make assumptions about credibility according to the depth and breadth of the information provided. If you're not prepared to make the commitment, then it's quite prudent not to publish so many details. If you don't publish it, then people can't mistake it for up-to-date, accurate, and/or comprehensive information, and they'll be more likely seek it out somewhere else or otherwise hedge their reliance. If you do publish and it's inaccurate, then you're misleading people and possibly redirecting them away from other, more reliable sources.
It's difficult to say without more details what the fundamental concerns in your case were. But note that the real, nuanced reasons for certain decisions aren't or can't always be adequately explained to employees. A lawyer or emergency services expert might give the sophisticated analysis, but by the time the directive makes it down to people implementing it the rationale is "because people are dumb". But in truth it's really more that people are trusting.
The greater the details, the greater the burden. People naturally make assumptions about credibility according to the depth and breadth of the information provided. If you're not prepared to make the commitment, then it's quite prudent not to publish so many details. If you don't publish it, then people can't mistake it for up-to-date, accurate, and/or comprehensive information, and they'll be more likely seek it out somewhere else or otherwise hedge their reliance. If you do publish and it's inaccurate, then you're misleading people and possibly redirecting them away from other, more reliable sources.
It's difficult to say without more details what the fundamental concerns in your case were. But note that the real, nuanced reasons for certain decisions aren't or can't always be adequately explained to employees. A lawyer or emergency services expert might give the sophisticated analysis, but by the time the directive makes it down to people implementing it the rationale is "because people are dumb". But in truth it's really more that people are trusting.