<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>KPI Design on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</title>
    <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/tags/kpi-design/</link>
    <description>Recent content in KPI Design on Counter UAV Radar — Low-Altitude Surveillance Radar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 22:30:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/tags/kpi-design/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>False Alarm Escalation vs False Alarm Rate: Why They Are Not the Same KPI</title>
      <link>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/knowledge-base/false-alarm-escalation-vs-false-alarm-rate-why-they-are-not-the-same-kpi/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.counteruavradar.com/en/knowledge-base/false-alarm-escalation-vs-false-alarm-rate-why-they-are-not-the-same-kpi/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Security teams often say they want fewer false alarms, but that phrase hides at least two different problems. One is how many nuisance events enter the system. The other is how many of those nuisance events travel far enough through the workflow to consume expensive verification or response effort. Those are not the same KPI.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;That distinction matters because many platforms report only one number: false alarm rate. That is a useful metric, but it does not tell the whole operational story. A system may still burden operators badly even if the inbound nuisance rate looks acceptable. Likewise, a system may ingest a noisy stream of low-value alerts while still protecting the operator workflow if most of that noise is contained early and cheaply.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
