FirstAlerts

Magnitude 7.4 Earthquake Reported in Western Colombia; Sources Differ on Location

Two outlets put the quake at magnitude 7.4 but place it in different parts of the country, and no casualty figures are established in the verified record.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 15, 2026, 2:25 a.m. ET
Developing

Earthquake records are revised. Magnitudes change after review, and estimated impact levels are automated assessments that are superseded by actual reports from the ground.

More on this incident

An in western Colombia was reported at magnitude 7.4 by both HNGN and KRGV. HNGN gave the depth as 103 kilometres, as the outlet stated it. That is the only depth figure in the verified record available for this report. The two outlets do not agree on where the struck. HNGN placed it , while KRGV placed it in . Neither account outweighs the other in the material available here, and this report does not choose between them. No casualty or damage figures are established in the verified record available for this report. Nor is a precise date or local time on the record here. KRGV reported that a donation drive was being held in the Rio Grande Valley following the . A revision of the magnitude following review has previously been indicated, but no revised value appears in the material available here. Because every figure in this report must trace to the record, no corrected number is given. Seismic magnitudes are routinely refined as more station data is analysed; a revision is part of how the measurement is produced rather than a correction of an error.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 215 Aug 2026, 06:25current

    Added KRGV as a second source corroborating magnitude 7.4, noted the unresolved conflict between HNGN's Chocó location and KRGV's Pereira region, and added the reported Rio Grande Valley donation drive.

  2. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:15current

    First published.

  3. Version 113 Aug 2026, 00:23

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.