* Most counties and cities did not meet the standard for suspending work or classes.
* No "typhoon holiday" was declared.
* Work and class suspensions remained for specific administrative areas: Taoyuan City's Fuxing District, Hsinchu County's Wufeng Township and Jianshei Township, Miaoli County's Tai'an Township, Nanzhuang Township, and Shitan Township; Taichung City's Heping District; Hualien County's two villages and one town; and Kaohsiung City's mountainous areas of Nammaxia, Taoyuan, Maolin, Jiaxian, and Liuqui.
* Kun River County (including Matsu Archipelago) and Kinmen County remained under work and class suspension.
* 1,130 people were injured and sent to hospitals during the typhoon, including two Indonesians, two Vietnamese people, and one Filipino person.
* The National Disaster Prevention and Rescue Technology Center warned of potential heavy rain impacts on Taiwan's eastern coast, northern Keelung, and the Mazu coastline.
* Evacuation numbers reached 14,600, with Flower Lien County accounting for 5,182 people, including 3,451 from Guangfu Township (Mata鞍).
* International and cross-strait flight routes were expected to be canceled, along with inland flights.
* Taiwan Railways maintained alert status for certain lines; HSR adjusted schedules.

The management of disaster response operates on a tiered system where localized conditions dictate specific actions, creating complexity beyond a simple pass/fail metric for regional shutdowns. The disparity between the general decision not to declare a holiday and the continued, highly localized restrictions highlights the tension between centralized operational control and hyper-local risk assessment. The focus shifts from broad mandates to granular hazard mitigation concerning water levels—as seen in the situation of Matasan and the ongoing monitoring by the Ministry of Agriculture regarding reservoir levels—suggesting that physical infrastructure safety remains a more immediate concern than administrative convenience.
The data on injuries involving foreign nationals and the subsequent request for verification introduces an element of administrative scrutiny layered onto a natural disaster response. This process implies a tension between rapid public reporting and due diligence, forcing an acknowledgment of potential gaps in real-time assessment when managing cross-jurisdictional impacts. Furthermore, the contrast between the large-scale evacuation numbers and the specific focus on water safety points to a pattern where quantitative measures (person count) are juxtaposed against qualitative, dynamic physical indicators (water levels). This structure suggests that effective governance requires integrating fluid environmental data with established administrative protocols, rather than relying solely on binary declarations.
What assumptions underpin the rapid shift in communication from generalized status updates to highly specific geographic and infrastructure alerts? What is the real cost of maintaining these layered response mechanisms when faced with rapidly evolving meteorological threats? How does acknowledging the localized focus on water management—like the Matasan situation—reframe the broader narrative of disaster resilience, moving it beyond simple displacement to include environmental stability as a core metric for safety?