Traffic light power restored at Hwy 93 and Seneca Creek Road

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

  Majority 25/25 present. Institutional branding appears via "Alert:", which marks the sender.

  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: Institutional branding appears via "Alert:", which marks the sender.
  2. present: The notice identifies who is speaking through "Alert:".
  3. present: Source is present because "Alert:" names the issuing campus or alert brand.
  4. present: A campus or alert signature ("Alert:") supplies the authority line.
  5. present: Sender identity is clear from the wording "Alert:".
  6. present: The alert tags an official issuer with "Alert:".
  7. present: Who is sending this is stated through "Alert:".
  8. present: Branded language "Alert:" functions as the source element.
  9. present: Campus naming in "Alert:" tells recipients the origin of the message.
  10. present: An official voice is established by "Alert:".
  11. present: The opening or body includes "Alert:" as institutional source.
  12. present: "Alert:" is enough to code source present under the branding rule.
  13. present: Recipients can tell the sender from "Alert:".
  14. present: Source scores present: "Alert:" is an authority marker.
  15. present: The university or college is referenced as "Alert:".
  16. present: Alert-system or school labeling ("Alert:") covers source.
  17. present: Issuing body is identifiable from "Alert:".
  18. present: "Alert:" operates as a branded signature for source.
  19. present: The text attributes the message via "Alert:".
  20. present: Source present: campus authority language "Alert:".
  21. present: Readers see "Alert:" and know which campus is speaking.
  22. present: Official sender cue "Alert:" is explicit in the text.
  23. present: Source is coded yes based on "Alert:".
  24. present: The phrase "Alert:" identifies the responding institution.
  25. present: Authority is named through the fragment "Alert:".
• Hazardabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. Only generic words like emergency or incident appear, with no specific threat named.

  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. absent: Only generic words like emergency or incident appear, with no specific threat named.
  2. absent: Hazard is absent: the text never names a concrete danger type.
  3. absent: No weather, violence, fire, outage, or other specific hazard is stated.
  4. absent: The message does not say what the threat is.
  5. absent: H=0 because specificity of hazard is missing.
  6. absent: Nothing identifies a particular hazard beyond vague wording.
  7. absent: A specific threat noun is not present.
  8. absent: Hazard fails the named-threat test.
  9. absent: Readers cannot tell what danger is being reported.
  10. absent: No concrete hazard language appears in the body.
  11. absent: The alert omits the what of the emergency.
  12. absent: Generic status language does not satisfy hazard.
  13. absent: Threat type is left unspecified.
  14. absent: Hazard element codes absent on this text.
  15. absent: Without a named hazard, H is zero.
  16. absent: The wording never specifies the danger.
  17. absent: No shots, storm, fire, leak, or similar is stated.
  18. absent: Hazard is too vague to count as present.
  19. absent: Specific threat naming is missing entirely.
  20. absent: H fails: no particular hazard term.
  21. absent: The message skips naming what is wrong.
  22. absent: Only non-specific incident language is used.
  23. absent: Hazard not established by the text.
  24. absent: A concrete hazard label is not found.
  25. absent: Named-threat requirement is not met.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No building, campus, street, or area is named.

  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. absent: No building, campus, street, or area is named.
  2. absent: Location is absent: the text never says where.
  3. absent: There is no place cue for recipients to orient to.
  4. absent: L=0 because spatial reference is missing.
  5. absent: The alert omits campus or site detail.
  6. absent: Where this applies is never stated.
  7. absent: No location language appears in the body.
  8. absent: Place naming fails on this wording.
  9. absent: Readers get no geographic anchor.
  10. absent: Location element is not satisfied.
  11. absent: Without a place name, L is zero.
  12. absent: The message leaves location unspecified.
  13. absent: No hall, campus, or area reference is present.
  14. absent: Spatial information is missing entirely.
  15. absent: L fails the place-naming test.
  16. absent: Affected site is not identified.
  17. absent: Location codes absent here.
  18. absent: The text is silent on where.
  19. absent: No campus geography is given.
  20. absent: Place element cannot be coded present.
  21. absent: Where-cue is blank in this alert.
  22. absent: Location not established by the wording.
  23. absent: Site detail is omitted.
  24. absent: No area or building reference exists.
  25. absent: L is absent on a pure no-place text.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No protective action or operational instruction is given to recipients.

  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. absent: No protective action or operational instruction is given to recipients.
  2. absent: Guidance is absent: the text does not tell people what to do.
  3. absent: There is no shelter, avoid, evacuate, remote, or similar directive.
  4. absent: G=0 because audience-facing instructions are missing.
  5. absent: The message reports status without directing action.
  6. absent: No what-to-do language appears.
  7. absent: Guidance fails: pure information without orders.
  8. absent: Recipients are not told a protective step.
  9. absent: Instructional content is not present.
  10. absent: The alert omits guidance to the public.
  11. absent: Without a directive, G is zero.
  12. absent: No action line is addressed to readers.
  13. absent: Guidance element codes absent.
  14. absent: What-to-do is left unstated.
  15. absent: The text does not instruct avoidance, shelter, or closure behavior.
  16. absent: Audience guidance is missing from the body.
  17. absent: G fails the protective-action test.
  18. absent: No operational instruction is issued.
  19. absent: Readers get facts but not orders.
  20. absent: Guidance not established here.
  21. absent: Directive language is absent.
  22. absent: The message never tells recipients how to act.
  23. absent: No shelter/evacuate/remote/close instruction appears.
  24. absent: G is absent on non-directive wording.
  25. absent: Protective guidance cannot be coded present.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears.

  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. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word such as now or today appears.
  2. absent: Time is absent from the alert text.
  3. absent: Nothing tells recipients when this applies.
  4. absent: T=0 because temporal cues are missing.
  5. absent: No day, hour, or immediate language is stated.
  6. absent: The message omits timing entirely.
  7. absent: Time element fails on this wording.
  8. absent: When is left unspecified.
  9. absent: No calendar or clock reference is present.
  10. absent: Temporal information cannot be found.
  11. absent: Without a time cue, T is zero.
  12. absent: The alert is silent on schedule.
  13. absent: Time codes absent here.
  14. absent: Recency language is missing.
  15. absent: T fails the when test.
  16. absent: No today/now/clock marker appears.
  17. absent: Timing is not established by the text.
  18. absent: Date and hour are both omitted.
  19. absent: Temporal element is not satisfied.
  20. absent: The body lacks any when cue.
  21. absent: Time not present under the rubric.
  22. absent: Schedule detail is blank.
  23. absent: No temporal anchor is given.
  24. absent: T is absent on timeless wording.
  25. absent: When-information is not included.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No consequence or severity language appears beyond naming a hazard.

  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: No consequence or severity language appears beyond naming a hazard.
  2. absent: Impact is absent: the text does not say what the threat could do.
  3. absent: Nothing states danger level, injuries, or disruptive effect.
  4. absent: I=0 because severity or harm is not conveyed.
  5. absent: Hazard may be named, but impact language is missing.
  6. absent: The alert omits consequence wording.
  7. absent: Impact fails the harm-or-severity test.
  8. absent: Readers are not told stakes or effects.
  9. absent: No life-safety or operational impact phrase is present.
  10. absent: Impact element codes absent.
  11. absent: Without consequence language, I is zero.
  12. absent: Severity is left unstated.
  13. absent: The text stops short of impact.
  14. absent: Harm potential is not described.
  15. absent: I fails on bare description without effects.
  16. absent: No dangerous/closed/injury-style impact cue appears.
  17. absent: Impact not established by the wording.
  18. absent: Consequence detail is missing.
  19. absent: The message lacks severity framing.
  20. absent: I is absent under the impact rule.
  21. absent: Stakes for people or property are not stated.
  22. absent: No disruption or harm language is included.
  23. absent: Impact cannot be coded present here.
  24. absent: Effect-on-campus language is omitted.
  25. absent: Severity/consequence element fails.