Shots fired near Linden Street and Rex Street, then no ongoing threat

To check this alert, SuperGrok Heavy 4.5 (an AI) read it in full 25 separate times, independently. Each read decided whether the message answers each of the six questions and gave a short reason. A final reviewer then weighed all 25 and wrote the plain-English verdict you see when you open a row. The score (for example 22/25) is how many reads agreed; the 25 individual reads are tucked underneath if you want to check them.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked this element present.

  Who is sending the alert and who is responding. People act faster on a message from a clearly identifiable, credible sender, such as a named department, the police, or a branded alert system, than on an anonymous notice. A branded signature counts.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: "Urgent BSU Alert" brands the sender, while MPD and UPD name the police agencies on the case.
  2. present: The closing words sit under a branded BSU Alert, and MPD plus UPD are named agencies in the investigation.
  3. present: Who sends it is identified by the branded BSU Alert tag and by the named agencies MPD and UPD.
  4. present: A recipient can identify the sender from the BSU Alert brand and the named agencies MPD and UPD.
  5. present: The hazard noun is issued under Urgent BSU Alert, and MPD plus UPD name the agencies handling the report.
  6. present: The place named near Linden and Rex is sent under the BSU Alert brand, with MPD and UPD as agencies.
  7. present: No clock does not identify the sender, yet Urgent BSU Alert clearly names the system that pushed this warning.
  8. present: Harm is sourced by the Urgent BSU Alert brand plus named agencies MPD and UPD as the investigators.
  9. present: The signature uses Urgent BSU Alert and also names MPD and UPD as the investigating agencies.
  10. present: I count Urgent BSU Alert plus MPD and UPD as the issuing brand and the agencies investigating.
  11. present: Reading the line, BSU Alert is the branded sender, and MPD and UPD are named agencies.
  12. present: The deciding words are "BSU Alert", with "MPD" and "UPD" also naming the investigating agencies.
  13. present: What settles this is the opener Urgent BSU Alert plus the named agencies MPD and UPD.
  14. present: On this text "Urgent BSU Alert" signs the sender while MPD and UPD are named as the investigating departments.
  15. present: For this element BSU Alert is a school brand and MPD plus UPD name the investigating agencies.
  16. present: The message identifies Urgent BSU Alert as the sender and names MPD and UPD as investigators.
  17. present: Recipients see BSU Alert plus MPD and UPD, so a campus brand and police agencies are named as senders.
  18. present: The wording uses Urgent BSU Alert as the sender and names MPD and UPD as investigators.
  19. present: A reader sees Urgent BSU Alert as the brand, plus MPD and UPD named as investigators.
  20. present: The alert identifies Urgent BSU Alert as the sender and names MPD and UPD as the investigating agencies.
  21. present: Looking at the sentence, Urgent BSU Alert and the agencies MPD and UPD identify who is sending it.
  22. present: The phrase "Urgent BSU Alert" is the branded signature that identifies the sender before the shots fired report.
  23. present: This one uses the branded tag Urgent BSU Alert and names MPD and UPD as the investigators.
  24. present: Judged from the text Urgent BSU Alert is a branded tag, and MPD and UPD name the responding agencies.
  25. present: My read is that Urgent BSU Alert brands the sender, and MPD plus UPD are named as the investigating agencies.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked this element present.

  What the threat actually is. A complete warning names the specific danger, such as a shooter, a fire, a tornado, or a gas leak, rather than a vague emergency, because people decide what to do based on what they are facing.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: "shots fired" is a specific threat, not a generic emergency, and officers are investigating those reports.
  2. present: The closing words keep the stay clear order, while the hazard itself is reports of shots fired.
  3. present: Who sends it reports shots fired, a specific threat, not a generic emergency label.
  4. present: A recipient is warned of shots fired under investigation, which names a concrete threat rather than a vague emergency.
  5. present: The hazard noun shots fired is named as the event under investigation, which is a specific threat and not a vague incident.
  6. present: The place named at Linden Street and Rex Street is linked to shots fired, a specific threat in the BSU text.
  7. present: No clock is irrelevant to the threat call, because shots fired names a concrete hazard under investigation near those streets.
  8. present: Harm is named specifically as shots fired, which is a concrete threat and not a vague situation label.
  9. present: The signature reports shots fired, which states a specific threat instead of a generic emergency.
  10. present: I count shots fired as a concrete hazard, not a generic police matter or unnamed emergency.
  11. present: Reading the line, shots fired names the specific threat under investigation near those streets.
  12. present: The deciding words are "shots fired", a specific named threat rather than a generic police matter.
  13. present: What settles this is reports of shots fired, a named threat and not a generic emergency.
  14. present: On this text the specific threat is "shots fired", which names gunfire rather than a generic emergency.
  15. present: For this element reports of shots fired state a concrete danger rather than a vague incident.
  16. present: The message states shots fired, which is a specific hazard and not a generic incident label.
  17. present: Recipients are told shots fired is the named threat that police are investigating near those streets.
  18. present: The wording reports shots fired, a concrete hazard rather than a generic emergency.
  19. present: A reader sees reports of shots fired, a concrete threat rather than a vague police matter.
  20. present: The alert states shots fired as the threat, a specific hazard and not a bare emergency label.
  21. present: Looking at the sentence, reports of shots fired state the specific threat under investigation.
  22. present: The phrase "shots fired" names the threat that police are investigating near those two streets.
  23. present: This one states reports of shots fired, a specific hazard rather than a generic emergency.
  24. present: Judged from the text reports of shots fired name a specific hazard rather than a vague incident or situation.
  25. present: My read is that reports of shots fired name a specific violent hazard rather than a generic police matter.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked this element present.

  Where the threat is. Saying whether danger is in a specific building, a part of campus, or area-wide lets people judge their own proximity and choose a safe direction. Without a where, a warning is hard to act on precisely.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: "Linden St/Rex St" names the streets tied to the shots fired report, so this is not a bare area.
  2. present: The closing words say area, but the sentence names Linden St and Rex St as the location.
  3. present: Who sends it names Linden St and Rex St, specific streets rather than a bare area phrase.
  4. present: A recipient is pointed to Linden St and Rex St, named streets, not left with the area standing alone.
  5. present: The hazard noun is pinned to Linden St and Rex St, which are named streets rather than a bare area or campus.
  6. present: The place named Linden Street and Rex Street is a real intersection, so this is not a bare mention of the area.
  7. present: No clock is not what places this alert, since Linden St and Rex St name a real intersection rather than a bare area.
  8. present: Harm is placed at the named streets Linden St and Rex St, not a bare unnamed area.
  9. present: The signature locates the reports at Linden St and Rex St, two named streets.
  10. present: I count Linden St and Rex St as named streets, which is more precise than campus or area alone.
  11. present: Reading the line, Linden St and Rex St are named streets that fix the location.
  12. present: The deciding words are "Linden St" and "Rex St", which name the streets instead of a bare area.
  13. present: What settles this is the named streets Linden St and Rex St, not a bare area label.
  14. present: On this text the streets are named together as Linden St and Rex St, fixing a real intersection.
  15. present: For this element Linden St and Rex St are proper street names that fix the location.
  16. present: The message names Linden Street and Rex Street as the location of the reported shots.
  17. present: Recipients get Linden Street and Rex Street as the named streets that locate the shots fired report.
  18. present: The wording puts the shots along Linden St and Rex St, which are named streets.
  19. present: A reader sees Linden St and Rex St named as the streets that bound the shots fired area.
  20. present: The alert locates the reports at Linden St and Rex St, which are named streets.
  21. present: Looking at the sentence, Linden St and Rex St name the streets where shots were reported.
  22. present: The phrase "Linden St/Rex St" names the streets connected to the shots fired report.
  23. present: This one places the reports at Linden St and Rex St, which are named streets and not a bare area.
  24. present: Judged from the text Linden St and Rex St are named streets, so a proper place is given.
  25. present: My read is that Linden Street and Rex Street are named as the area of the reported shots.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked this element present.

  The protective action to take. A clear, specific instruction, such as shelter in place, evacuate, avoid the area, or run-hide-fight, drives faster and more correct protective behavior than describing the threat alone.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: "Stay clear of area" directs recipients to keep away, which is a protective stay-clear instruction.
  2. present: The closing words tell people to stay clear of the area, which is a protective instruction.
  3. present: Who sends it directs recipients to stay clear of the area, a protective instruction.
  4. present: A recipient is instructed to stay clear of the area, a protective order rather than a campus closure or web link.
  5. present: The hazard noun carries the direct order to stay clear of the area, which is an action and not mere monitoring.
  6. present: The place named at Linden and Rex carries a protective order telling readers to stay clear of that area.
  7. present: No clock wording is not the basis, because stay clear of the area tells people how to protect themselves.
  8. present: Harm is addressed by the protective instruction to stay clear of the area, which is more than a closure notice.
  9. present: The signature tells recipients to stay clear of the area while the investigation continues.
  10. present: I count stay clear of the area until further notice as a direct instruction to keep the reader safe.
  11. present: Reading the line, stay clear of the area tells readers the protective action to take.
  12. present: The deciding words are "Stay clear of area", a protective command and not a closure or website referral.
  13. present: What settles this is the protective order to stay clear of the area, not a closure notice.
  14. present: On this text the protective instruction is to "Stay clear of area" rather than only describing the police response.
  15. present: For this element stay clear of the area is a direct order telling readers what to do.
  16. present: The message directs recipients to stay clear of the area, a protective instruction.
  17. present: Recipients are ordered to stay clear of the area, which is a direct avoidance instruction.
  18. present: The wording directs people to stay clear of the area until the notice changes.
  19. present: A reader sees a protective order to stay clear of the area around those streets.
  20. present: The alert instructs recipients to stay clear of the area, a protective action rather than a closure notice.
  21. present: Looking at the sentence, stay clear of the area is a protective instruction for recipients.
  22. present: The phrase "Stay clear of area" instructs readers to keep away, which is a protective action.
  23. present: This one directs recipients to stay clear of the area, a protective instruction.
  24. present: Judged from the text stay clear of the area tells readers how to keep away from the reported gunfire.
  25. present: My read is that stay clear of the area tells recipients to keep away, which is a protective instruction.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked this element present.

  When the message applies. A timestamp, the word now or immediately, or a phrase like until further notice tells the reader whether the danger is current and how quickly to act.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. present: "until further notice" marks how long the stay-clear order lasts, so a time element is present.
  2. present: The closing words end on until further notice, and that phrase is a time cue rather than guidance.
  3. present: Who sends it says stay clear until further notice, which supplies a continuing time boundary.
  4. present: A recipient is given until further notice, which tells how long the stay clear warning remains in effect.
  5. present: The hazard noun remains active under until further notice, a listed recency phrase and not a date stamp alone.
  6. present: The place named at Linden and Rex stays restricted until further notice, which is a current time cue, not a date only.
  7. present: No clock time is printed, but until further notice is the recency cue that holds the warning open.
  8. present: Harm is framed as continuing until further notice, a recency window rather than a calendar date only.
  9. present: The signature holds that stay clear direction until further notice, a clear time cue.
  10. present: I count until further notice as an open ended time window rather than a date standing by itself.
  11. present: Reading the line, until further notice is a duration cue, not a bare calendar date.
  12. present: The deciding words are "until further notice", which sets an open recency window beyond any date.
  13. present: What settles this is until further notice, which tells readers how long to stay clear.
  14. present: On this text "until further notice" tells readers the avoidance window is still open, even without a clock time.
  15. present: For this element until further notice marks how long the restriction remains in effect.
  16. present: The message limits the stay-clear order until further notice, a duration cue rather than a date.
  17. present: Recipients must stay clear until further notice, so the message gives a continuing time span rather than a date.
  18. present: The wording limits that stay clear order with until further notice, a duration cue.
  19. present: A reader sees until further notice set on the stay clear order, a duration rather than a date.
  20. present: The alert directs people to stay clear until further notice, which sets an open time window.
  21. present: Looking at the sentence, until further notice tells recipients how long to remain clear of the area.
  22. present: The phrase "until further notice" tells readers how long to stay clear, so a time window is present.
  23. present: This one sets the stay clear order to last until further notice, an open time cue.
  24. present: Judged from the text until further notice is an explicit continuing time cue, not merely a calendar date.
  25. present: My read is that until further notice sets how long people should stay clear, and that phrase is a recency cue.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  0 of 25 passes marked this element present.

  What the hazard could do to the people in its path. Beyond naming the threat, a complete warning conveys its potential consequences or severity, such as that a tornado can level buildings or that a leak could be explosive, so recipients grasp how much danger they are in. Research on warning message content finds that a concrete impact statement helps people personalize their risk and act sooner.

  See all 25 individual reads

  1. absent: "shots fired" names the hazard alone, with no injuries, property damage, or dangerous severity added.
  2. absent: The closing words add no severity such as damage or danger, and shots fired is only the hazard name.
  3. absent: Who sends it names shots fired but gives no damage, danger, or extra severity beyond that hazard.
  4. absent: A recipient is not told of injuries or damage, only that the hazard itself is reports of shots fired.
  5. absent: The hazard noun shots fired has no added injury, damage, or danger word, so the consequence slot stays empty.
  6. absent: The place named at Linden and Rex states shots fired alone, with no injury, damage, or other consequence written out.
  7. absent: No clock explains nothing about impact, and shots fired is the whole hazard with no injury or extra severity stated.
  8. absent: Harm is not described beyond the shots fired label, with no injury, casualty, or damage stated.
  9. absent: The signature stops at shots fired and adds no damage, danger, or extra severity.
  10. absent: I count shots fired as the label only, with no injury, weapon effect, or property harm described.
  11. absent: Reading the line, shots fired names the hazard without saying anyone was hurt or endangered.
  12. absent: The deciding words are "Urgent" and "shots fired", a banner and a hazard noun without damage or injury language.
  13. absent: What settles this is that shots fired is the threat name alone, with no harm or injury added.
  14. absent: On this text "Urgent" labels the message, but nothing says anyone was hit, hurt, or that property was damaged.
  15. absent: For this element urgent is only the alert banner, not a harm word beyond shots fired.
  16. absent: The message gives only the hazard name shots fired and does not state a consequence.
  17. absent: Recipients are not given words of injury, damage, or added danger past the shots fired label.
  18. absent: The wording stops at shots fired and never says anyone was hurt or anything was damaged.
  19. absent: A reader sees shots fired stated, but no wound, casualty, or property harm is added.
  20. absent: The alert reports shots fired and an investigation but gives no injury count, damage, or severity wording.
  21. absent: Looking at the sentence, shots fired is named but no deadly or dangerous consequence is stated.
  22. absent: The phrase "investigating reports" describes the police response and never states harm, injury, or extra severity.
  23. absent: This one reports shots fired under investigation and does not say anyone was hurt or anything was damaged.
  24. absent: Judged from the text shots fired names the hazard, yet no harm, injury, or added severity is described.
  25. absent: My read is that the word urgent labels the message, while shots fired never states an injury or other consequence.