Military (state) aircraft sometimes conduct observation and intelligence-gathering flights near (but not within) the territorial airspaces of other countries, flying without the express permission of said other country, but in international airspace with "due regard to safety of flight". Since those other countries are often not on the best terms with the country performing said flight, they will send an interceptor up to meet and "shadow" the aircraft performing said due regard flight until it has cleared the area of concern. This is all well and good provided nobody does something unexpected or silly-at-best, hazardously-dumb-at-worst.
However, military aircraft are still susceptible to hazards such as severe/extreme turbulence, severe in-flight icing (such as that caused by lofted supercooled large droplets), and thunderstorms, that would force a flight to deviate around said airborne hazard. While some hazards (thunderstorms) might be visible to both interceptor and interceptee on radar, others (icing, severe/extreme CAT) aren't -- leaving other pilots and their PIREPs as the primary source of information about what's actually going on up there.
So, that brings me to my question. If the interceptee gets a PIREP saying the hole in the thunderstorm line they planned to thread their way through is closing up, or a bunch of unforecasted icing is up ahead on their route, how can they unambiguously communicate "I need to deviate around this hazard up ahead by X miles left/right" to the interceptor so they don't wind up making the interceptor think they're being noncompliant? Or is this not a concern provided the interceptee's maneuvers stay within a normal maneuvering envelope (i.e. half standard rate to standard rate turns, gradual climbs or descents)?