###### Abstract  
Macroseismic intensity data are the only source of information for historical earthquakes; it is therefore necessary to devise methods that allow us to retrieve as many source parameters as possible on the basis of these data. We present the inversion of macroseismic data as a first validation of an improved version of the kinematic function, KF. Following the previous results of some earthquakes on Italian territory and several validations by Californian events provided with instrumental solutions, we have now simplified the KF by reducing some degrees of freedom of the parameters and rearranging the code for parallel calculation. This approach will allow for a more extensive application of the KF technique. We present the inversion of the macroseismic intensity pattern of the M\({}_{\rm wp}\)6 earthquake of 27 March 1928 (8:32 GMT), which occurred in Northeastern Italy (Carnia), and we retrieved source parameters that are compatible with the solutions of other authors who independently treat instrumental data. The 1928 event is located a few tens of kilometers west of the more destructive M\({}_{\rm wp}\)6.5 of 6 May 1976 and northeast of the subsequent earthquake M\({}_{\rm wp}\)6.1 of 18 October 1936. The inversion was performed as a blind test, without prior knowledge for fault plane solutions and tectonic information; it resulted in a minimum variance model with a strike of 62\({}^{\circ}\), a dip of 10\({}^{\circ}\), and a rake of 101\({}^{\circ}\). This solution is not consistent with the entire tectonic framework of the eastern Southalpine chain, but it is in agreement with the But-Chiarso line. This result encourages us to test further improvements to the KF method and to treat other cases from the Italian macroseismic catalog. macroseismic intensity pattern; kinematic function; historical catalog 20251507202515  
seismicity is moderate (only eight events with M \(>\) six occurred since 1976, the year when digital seismology started worldwide), it is essential to include historical information to correctly assess hazards. Intensity, however, is often quite tricky. First, it must be stated that since damage can be caused both by positive and negative pulses, it is impossible to recover a complete focal mechanism; it means that we can theoretically distinguish between a strike-slip solution and a normal/reverse one, but we cannot hope to refine it to say that it is a right or left strike-slip rupture or, alternatively, a normal versus a reverse one. To add to the complexity, we must consider that there can be regional variations in Q and local seismic effects, but we will not tackle these issues here, since they would require investigating a large number of events. Usually, local effects are not a serious problem, since we generally observe them only in few spots. Q effects are a more serious problem, even more so if the macroseismic field lies partially on a mountain range and partially on a plane. In this case, the general shape can be altered. However, another important issue is the seismic vulnerability of buildings. The EMS98 scale, for example, organizes vulnerability correctly, based on building types and considering vulnerability explicitly. Theoretically, this aspect should be consistent with the previous macroseismic scales MSK, MCS, and MM. In fact, the historical scales considered vulnerability based on a visual (or esthetic) survey of building types, considering the substantial equivalence between building types and vulnerability. On the contrary, the variations in resistance within each building type are often as great as those between different vulnerability classes. Following this approach, the seismic vulnerability of buildings has historically often been neglected, considered as a secondary parameter, and thus poorly conditioned. In fact, the seismic vulnerability of buildings and its distribution has not generally been considered in attenuation laws (e.g., but not limited to [3; 4; 5]).