FirstAlerts

Tropical Storm Krovanh Exits PAR, Position and Wind Speed Differ Across Reports

BusinessWorld reports Krovanh left the Philippine Area of Responsibility at 4:30 a.m., but its location and wind speed vary between its own accounts.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 2, 2026, 3:10 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 2, 2026, 2:54 a.m. ETUpdated Sep 3, 2026, 1:55 a.m. ET
exited the Philippine Area of Responsibility (PAR) at 4:30 a.m., according to a report by BusinessWorld. As of 11:00 a.m. on September 2, 2026, the storm was positioned either 1,085 kilometers northeast or , depending on which BusinessWorld report is consulted. The reports also conflict on sustained wind speed, listing it as either or 40 miles per hour. The storm's exit from PAR was reported by BusinessWorld, but no landfall has been indicated in the reports. The cause of any potential impact has not been determined.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 2, 2026, 3:10 a.m. ETFirst report

    Tropical Storm Krovanh Monitored East of Extreme Northern Luzon

    As of 11:00 a.m. on September 2, 2026, Tropical Storm Krovanh was located 1,135 kilometers east of Extreme Northern Luzon, according to a report by BusinessWorld. The storm had sustained winds of 40 mph, the report said.

    The Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) is monitoring the storm, which is part of a broader weather outlook that includes rainfall warnings for seven areas, BusinessWorld reported. The storm's development and potential impacts remain under observation.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 23 Sept 2026, 05:55current

    Updated to reflect conflicting reports on position and wind speed, and added exit time.

  2. Version 12 Sept 2026, 07:10current

    First published.

  3. Version 12 Sept 2026, 07:22

    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.