Emailed library bomb threat evacuates two buildings; no devices found

To check this alert, Claude (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.

• Sourceabsent4/25

  Final assessment

  Majority finds no named sender; a minority read authorities who comb the premises plus the institutional we as identifying a source.

  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. absent: No sender tag, agency, or university self-identification appears in the text.
  2. absent: No sender, agency, or branded signature appears in the text.
  3. absent: No sender name, branded signature, or responding authority is identified.
  4. absent: No sender, agency, or branded signature is named in the text.
  5. absent: No sender tag, university name, or named agency identifies who issued this; only generic "authorities" is mentioned.
  6. present: It refers to "authorities" who "comb the premises" as the responding authority.
  7. absent: No sender tag, agency, or university self-identification appears in the text.
  8. absent: No sender tag or named issuing authority appears in this text.
  9. absent: No sender tag, university name, or agency is identified; only generic "authorities" appears.
  10. absent: No sender tag or issuing authority is named in this excerpt.
  11. absent: No sender tag or self-naming authority identifies who is sending this message.
  12. present: Refers to "authorities" who "comb the premises" as the responding authority and uses "we", an institutional voice.
  13. absent: No sender, alert brand, or responding authority is named in the text.
  14. absent: No sender tag or named issuing authority appears in the message text.
  15. absent: No sender tag, university name, or agency is identified in the text.
  16. absent: No sender name, branded signature, or named agency appears in the text.
  17. absent: No sender, branded tag, or authority identifies itself; "authorities" are only mentioned combing the premises.
  18. absent: No branded signature, agency, or university self-naming appears in the text.
  19. present: It refers to "authorities" combing the premises, a responding authority.
  20. absent: No sender brand, university name, or named agency identifies who issued the message.
  21. absent: No sender tag or authority identifies itself in the text.
  22. absent: No sender tag, university name, or agency is identified in the message text.
  23. absent: No sender tag, agency, or university name appears in the text.
  24. present: Refers to "authorities" combing the premises, a responding authority.
  25. absent: No sender tag, institution name, or agency identifies who is sending the message.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous: the message names a specific threat, bomb threats directed at colleges and universities.

  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: It names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific threat.
  2. present: It names "bomb threats", a specific threat type.
  3. present: It names "bomb threats" directed at colleges, a specific hazard.
  4. present: It names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  5. present: It names "bomb threats" as the situation being addressed, a specific threat.
  6. present: It names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific threat.
  7. present: Names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  8. present: It names "bomb threats" directed at colleges, a specific hazard.
  9. present: Names "bomb threats" directed at colleges, a specific threat type.
  10. present: It names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  11. present: Names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  12. present: It names "bomb threats" as the specific hazard.
  13. present: It names the threat specifically as "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities".
  14. present: Names the hazard as "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities".
  15. present: Names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  16. present: Names "bomb threats" directed at colleges, a specific threat type.
  17. present: Names "bomb threats" as the specific hazard.
  18. present: It names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  19. present: It names "bomb threats", a specific threat type.
  20. present: It names "bomb threats" as the hazard, even while calling them not credible.
  21. present: Names "bomb threats", a specific hazard.
  22. present: It names "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", a specific hazard.
  23. present: It names "bomb threats", a specific hazard.
  24. present: Names "bomb threats", a specific hazard.
  25. present: It refers to "bomb threats directed at colleges and universities", naming the specific threat.
• Locationabsent9/25

  Final assessment

  Majority finds no specific place for this institution, only general references to colleges and universities and the premises; a minority counted those as a location.

  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: It refers to "colleges and universities" and "the premises", a location reference.
  2. absent: No specific place is named; it refers generally to "colleges and universities".
  3. present: It references "the premises" being combed by authorities.
  4. present: It references "the premises", a place being combed by authorities.
  5. absent: It refers only to "the premises" generally with no specific place named for this institution.
  6. present: It references "the premises" being combed, indicating the campus location.
  7. absent: Refers vaguely to "colleges and universities" and "the premises", naming no specific place.
  8. present: It refers to "colleges and universities" and "the premises", a location reference.
  9. present: Refers to "colleges and universities" and "the premises", a place context.
  10. absent: No building, area, or "campus" is given as a location for the threat beyond a general reference to "the premises".
  11. absent: No building, street, or area is named; "the premises" is too vague to locate.
  12. absent: No building, area, or campus location is specified for this incident.
  13. present: It references "the premises" being combed, a location.
  14. absent: No specific place is named; it references colleges generally and "the premises" abstractly.
  15. absent: No building, street, or campus location is specified beyond a general reference to "the premises".
  16. absent: No building, street, area, or campus location is specified in the text.
  17. present: References "colleges and universities" and "the premises" being combed, a place reference.
  18. absent: No building, street, or area is named; "the premises" is too vague.
  19. absent: It speaks generally of "colleges and universities", no specific place for this incident.
  20. absent: No building, area, or campus location is specified in the text.
  21. absent: No specific place named; refers only generally to "colleges and universities" and "the premises".
  22. absent: No specific place is named; "the premises" is too generic to pinpoint a location.
  23. present: It references "the premises" and "colleges and universities", a place context.
  24. absent: No specific location is named; "colleges and universities" is generic.
  25. absent: It speaks generally of colleges; no specific building, campus, or area is named.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous: the message thanks recipients for cooperation but gives them no protective action.

  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: It thanks recipients for cooperation but gives them no protective action to take.
  2. absent: It gives recipients no protective action, only context and appreciation for cooperation.
  3. absent: It offers reassurance and context but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  4. absent: It offers reassurance and thanks but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  5. absent: It only asks for "cooperation" and gives no concrete protective action to recipients.
  6. absent: It asks for "cooperation" but gives recipients no specific protective action to take.
  7. absent: Offers context and reassurance but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  8. absent: It only reassures and thanks for cooperation, giving recipients no protective action to take.
  9. absent: It explains and reassures but gives recipients no protective action to take.
  10. absent: It offers reassurance and context but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  11. absent: It offers reassurance and thanks but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  12. absent: It gives no protective action to recipients, only context about threat credibility.
  13. absent: It offers reassurance but gives recipients no protective action to take.
  14. absent: It offers context and reassurance but no protective action instruction to the recipient.
  15. absent: Provides reassurance and context but no protective action for recipients to take.
  16. absent: The message reassures and thanks recipients but gives no protective instruction.
  17. absent: No protective action is directed at recipients, only reassurance about credibility.
  18. absent: It gives no protective action instruction to recipients, only thanks for cooperation.
  19. absent: It offers reassurance and asks for cooperation, no protective action instruction.
  20. absent: It offers reassurance and thanks but gives recipients no protective action to take.
  21. absent: No protective action instructed to recipients; describes authorities combing premises.
  22. absent: It offers reassurance and thanks but gives recipients no protective action to take.
  23. absent: It offers reassurance and thanks for cooperation but gives no protective instruction.
  24. absent: Offers context and reassurance; gives recipients no protective instruction.
  25. absent: It only contextualizes and thanks for cooperation; it gives no protective instruction.
• Timepresent24/25

  Final assessment

  Near-unanimous: the phrase in recent weeks supplies a recency cue; one read found no time word.

  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: It says "in recent weeks", a recency cue.
  2. present: "in recent weeks" conveys recency.
  3. present: It says threats have occurred "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  4. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency/time reference.
  5. present: It uses recency cues "in recent weeks" and present-tense "comb the premises".
  6. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency reference to the threats.
  7. present: Says these have occurred "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  8. present: It cites recency with "in recent weeks", a time reference.
  9. present: Says "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  10. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  11. present: Says the threats occurred "in recent weeks", conveying recency.
  12. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency cue.
  13. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  14. present: Uses "in recent weeks", a recency/time reference.
  15. present: Says "in recent weeks", conveying a recency time frame.
  16. present: Uses "in recent weeks", conveying recency of the threats.
  17. present: Says "in recent weeks", a recency cue.
  18. present: It references "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  19. absent: No clock time, date, or recency word like "now" appears.
  20. present: It references "recent weeks", a recency time frame.
  21. present: Says "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
  22. present: It says "in recent weeks", conveying timing and recency.
  23. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency cue.
  24. present: Uses "in recent weeks", a recency cue.
  25. present: It says "in recent weeks", a recency reference.
• Impactabsent7/25

  Final assessment

  Absent by an 18 to 7 majority. The message downplays bomb threats as not credible and asks for cooperation, stating no actual potential harm; the minority read taking it seriously as conveying danger.

  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: It downplays the bomb threats as not credible and says it is taken seriously but states no actual potential harm.
  2. absent: This downplays bomb threats as not credible and asks for cooperation, stating no specific harm or danger.
  3. present: States the situation is taken very seriously while authorities comb the premises, conveying potential danger of the bomb threat.
  4. absent: It states bomb threats have not been credible threats, explicitly conveying no actual danger or harm.
  5. absent: Downplays bomb threats as not credible and serious cooperation, stating no actual harm or danger.
  6. present: It states the threats have not been credible yet says they take the situation very seriously which addresses severity but largely downplays harm; the framing conveys the assessed low danger level.
  7. present: Mentions bomb threats and explicitly states authorities are combing the premises while taking it seriously, implying a danger being searched for.
  8. absent: Explicitly downplays the bomb threats as not credible, conveying no danger or impact.
  9. absent: States bomb threats have not been credible threats, conveying absence of danger rather than impact.
  10. absent: It explicitly says the bomb threats have not been credible, downplaying rather than conveying danger.
  11. absent: States the bomb threats have not been credible and were not credible threats, conveying low danger rather than impact.
  12. present: It states the situation is taken very seriously as authorities comb the premises, but explicitly says threats have not been credible, undercutting any stated danger so it conveys no real impact.
  13. absent: It frames bomb threats as not credible and gives reassurance, stating no actual harm or danger from the threat.
  14. absent: Says the bomb threats have not been credible and are taken seriously but conveys no actual harm or danger to people.
  15. absent: States the bomb threats have not been credible and downplays danger, conveying no harm.
  16. present: States threats are taken very seriously while authorities comb the premises, implying potential danger though framing it as not credible.
  17. absent: Explicitly says the bomb threats have not been credible threats, downplaying rather than asserting danger or harm.
  18. absent: Explicitly states the bomb threats have not been credible, conveying no real danger or harm.
  19. absent: Explicitly says the bomb threats have not been credible, conveying no real harm or danger.
  20. present: States the threats have not been credible and frames the situation as taken seriously but downplays danger, yet the message conveys reassurance rather than harm so it lacks stated impact.
  21. absent: States the bomb threats have not been credible threats, explicitly downplaying rather than conveying harm or danger.
  22. absent: States bomb threats have not been credible and authorities are searching, conveying no actual danger or harm.
  23. present: Says the threat is taken very seriously while noting bomb threats have not been credible, addressing severity though downplaying it.
  24. absent: Explicitly says the bomb threats have not been credible threats, downplaying rather than stating danger.
  25. absent: It downplays the bomb threats as not credible and conveys no stated harm or danger.