Shoved and threatened in the 500 block of South State

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

  All 25 reads agree Columbia College Chicago names itself and the Chicago Police Department and Campus Security are named agencies.

  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: Columbia College Chicago greets its community and the Chicago Police Department is named as the investigating agency.
  2. present: The bulletin addresses the Columbia College Chicago community and names the Chicago Police Department as the agency investigating.
  3. present: The greeting names Columbia College Chicago and the Chicago Police Department is listed as the investigating agency.
  4. present: Columbia College Chicago greets its community and the Chicago Police Department is named as the investigating agency.
  5. present: Columbia College Chicago is named in the greeting and the Chicago Police Department is identified as the investigating agency.
  6. present: Columbia College Chicago is named in the community heading and the Chicago Police Department is identified as the agency handling the case.
  7. present: The salutation names Columbia College Chicago and the body cites the Chicago Police Department as the investigating agency.
  8. present: Columbia College Chicago is named in the community greeting and Chicago Police Department is the investigating agency.
  9. present: The header speaks to the Columbia College Chicago Community and the body names the Chicago Police Department as the investigating agency.
  10. present: The greeting names Columbia College Chicago as the issuer and credits the Chicago Police Department as the investigating agency.
  11. present: Columbia College Chicago names its community in the greeting while the Chicago Police Department is cited as the investigating agency.
  12. present: The greeting addresses the Columbia College Chicago community and the Chicago Police Department is named as the investigating agency.
  13. present: The greeting names Columbia College Chicago and the Chicago Police Department is listed as the investigating agency.
  14. present: Columbia College Chicago names itself in the greeting and Chicago Police Department is identified as the investigating agency.
  15. present: The greeting names Columbia College Chicago and the body cites the Chicago Police Department as the investigating agency.
  16. present: Columbia College Chicago is named in the greeting, and the Chicago Police Department is listed as the investigating agency.
  17. present: Columbia College Chicago greets its own community and names the Chicago Police Department as the agency handling the case.
  18. present: The college titles the audience as the Columbia College Chicago Community and assigns the case to the Chicago Police Department.
  19. present: The advisory addresses the Columbia College Chicago community and names the Chicago Police Department as the investigating agency.
  20. present: Columbia College Chicago names the campus audience and the Chicago Police Department is cited as the investigating agency.
  21. present: Columbia College Chicago addresses its community and the Chicago Police Department is named as the investigating agency.
  22. present: Columbia College Chicago names its community in the greeting and Chicago Police Department is identified as the investigating agency.
  23. present: Columbia College Chicago is named in the greeting, and the Chicago Police Department plus Campus Security appear as named agencies.
  24. present: The greeting names Columbia College Chicago while the body identifies the Chicago Police Department as the investigating agency.
  25. present: Columbia College Chicago is named in the greeting and the Chicago Police Department is identified as the investigating agency.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree this element is 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: An unknown person shoving a pedestrian and threatening harm names a specific assault.
  2. present: A shove plus a verbal harm threat is a specific assault rather than a generic incident.
  3. present: Shoving a pedestrian and then threatening that person with harm is a concrete assault-type incident.
  4. present: A shove paired with a threat of harm specifies an assault-style encounter rather than a vague incident.
  5. present: An unknown person shoving a walker and threatening harm is a specific assault.
  6. present: An unknown person shoved a walker and then threatened harm, which is a specific assault.
  7. present: The writeup describes a shove plus an explicit threat of harm, a specific assaultive crime.
  8. present: A shove plus a threat of harm identifies an assault on a pedestrian.
  9. present: An unknown person shoving a pedestrian and threatening harm is a specific assault, not a generic crime label.
  10. present: An unknown person shoving a pedestrian and threatening harm is a specific assault.
  11. present: Shoving a walker and threatening harm is a specific assault rather than a vague occurrence.
  12. present: Shoving a walker and threatening that person with harm is a specific assault.
  13. present: Shoving a pedestrian and threatening that person with harm is a specific assault.
  14. present: The text describes a shove plus an explicit threat of harm, which specifies an assault-type event.
  15. present: Shoving a pedestrian and threatening that person with harm describes an assault rather than a vague incident.
  16. present: A shove paired with a verbal threat of harm identifies an assault as the hazard.
  17. present: Shoving a pedestrian and threatening that person with harm is a concrete assault-style threat.
  18. present: Shoving a pedestrian then warning of harm is a specific assault, not a vague incident.
  19. present: Shoving a pedestrian and threatening that person with harm specifies an assault.
  20. present: An unknown person shoving a pedestrian and threatening harm specifies an assault-style attack.
  21. present: An unknown person shoving a walker and threatening that person with harm is a specific assault.
  22. present: A shove plus a spoken threat of harm is a concrete assault.
  23. present: Shoving a walker and threatening that person with harm is a concrete assault.
  24. present: Shoving a walker and threatening that person with harm is a specific assault.
  25. present: A shove paired with an explicit threat of harm names a specific assault.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree this element is 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: The 500 block of South State Street is a street location for the encounter.
  2. present: The walker is placed on the 500 block of South State Street.
  3. present: The 500 block of South State Street pins the encounter to a specific street segment.
  4. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a concrete street location.
  5. present: The 500 block of South State Street supplies a street location.
  6. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a named street segment.
  7. present: The event is sited on the 500 block of South State Street, a street block identifier.
  8. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a specific street block.
  9. present: The walk occurred in the 500 block of South State Street, a street location.
  10. present: The 500 block of South State Street supplies a named street location.
  11. present: The 500 block of South State Street locates the shove on a named street.
  12. present: The scene is the 500 block of South State Street.
  13. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a concrete street location.
  14. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a concrete street location.
  15. present: The 500 block of South State Street pins the shove to a named street segment.
  16. present: The walker is placed in the 500 block of South State Street.
  17. present: The walker was on the 500 block of South State Street, a named street segment.
  18. present: The walker was on the 500 block of South State Street, a street block location.
  19. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a concrete street segment.
  20. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a street location.
  21. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a street location for the encounter.
  22. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a named street location.
  23. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a named street segment.
  24. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a named street location.
  25. present: The 500 block of South State Street is a street location.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree asking anyone with information to contact Campus Security and detectives is a tips request, not 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: Callers are only invited to share information with Campus Security and detectives, which is a tip request.
  2. absent: The close only invites people who know more to telephone Campus Security and detectives.
  3. absent: Asking people to call Campus Security or detectives with tips is not a protective instruction.
  4. absent: Asking people to call Campus Security and detectives with tips is not a protective action.
  5. absent: The closing lines only invite tip calls to Campus Security and detectives rather than any safety action.
  6. absent: Call Campus Security or detectives if you have facts is a tips appeal, not a protective instruction.
  7. absent: The close only asks people with information to call Campus Security and detectives, a tips request rather than a protective step.
  8. absent: Callers are only asked to share extra information with Campus Security and detectives, which is a tips request rather than protective action.
  9. absent: Calling Campus Security and detectives with extra information is a witness tip plea, not a protective instruction.
  10. absent: Asking callers to ring Campus Security or detectives with extra facts is a tips request, not protective action.
  11. absent: Phone numbers for Campus Security and detectives only solicit tips and never tell readers how to stay safe.
  12. absent: The close only asks people with extra facts to phone Campus Security and detectives, a tip appeal not a protective step.
  13. absent: Asking anyone with extra facts to call Campus Security or detectives is a tips request, not protective action.
  14. absent: The only ask is to call Campus Security or detectives with tips, which is not a protective action.
  15. absent: Phone numbers for Campus Security and detectives only solicit extra case information, not a protective step.
  16. absent: The message only invites people with extra facts to call Campus Security or detectives.
  17. absent: The close only asks people with extra facts to call Campus Security or detectives, which is a tips request rather than a protective step.
  18. absent: Campus Security and detective phone lines only collect extra information, which is not protective guidance.
  19. absent: Asking people to call Campus Security or detectives with tips is not a protective action.
  20. absent: The only ask is to phone Campus Security or detectives with tips, which is not protective action.
  21. absent: The footer only asks people with extra facts to call Campus Security and detectives, which is a tips request rather than a protective step.
  22. absent: Telling readers to phone Campus Security or detectives with extra details is a tips plea, not a protective step.
  23. absent: The footer only asks anyone with extra facts to phone Campus Security and detectives, a witness appeal rather than a safety instruction.
  24. absent: The closing ask to call Campus Security or detectives with extra facts is a tips request, not a protective step.
  25. absent: The closing only asks people with information to call Campus Security or detectives, which is a tips request.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree this element is 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: May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m. supplies both a calendar date and a clock time.
  2. present: May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m. supplies both a calendar date and an exact clock time.
  3. present: The event is fixed to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  4. present: The event is pinned to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  5. present: The event is dated May 8, 2025 and clocked at 4:48 p.m.
  6. present: The encounter is fixed to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  7. present: The incident is given as May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  8. present: The incident is fixed to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  9. present: May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m. records both the calendar day and an exact clock time.
  10. present: The incident is dated May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  11. present: The attack is timestamped May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m. under a May 10, 2025 advisory date.
  12. present: The incident is dated May 8, 2025 and clocked at 4:48 p.m.
  13. present: The event is fixed to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m., a date plus clock time.
  14. present: The incident is timestamped May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  15. present: May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m. supplies both a calendar date and an exact clock time.
  16. present: The encounter is dated May 8, 2025 and clocked at 4:48 p.m.
  17. present: The incident is dated May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  18. present: The episode is timestamped May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  19. present: The incident is dated May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  20. present: The incident is given as May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  21. present: The incident is clocked at 4:48 p.m. on May 8, 2025.
  22. present: The incident is pinned to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  23. present: The episode is dated May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  24. present: The encounter is timed to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
  25. present: The incident is timed to May 8, 2025 at 4:48 p.m.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree this element is 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. present: The verbal threat of harm states a risk of injury as a consequence of the shove.
  2. present: The offender threatening harm flags possible injury as a consequence of the stop.
  3. present: The spoken threat of harm states a risk of injury beyond the shove itself.
  4. present: Threatening the walker with harm states a risk of injury as a consequence of the encounter.
  5. present: A threat of harm states severity for the person who was shoved.
  6. present: The spoken threat of harm states possible injury as a severity outcome.
  7. present: Threatening the person with harm states a severe consequence beyond the shove itself.
  8. present: Threatening the walker with harm states a risk of physical injury.
  9. present: The verbal threat of harm states a risk of injury beyond the shove itself.
  10. present: Threatening the victim with harm states a severity consequence beyond the shove itself.
  11. present: An explicit threat of harm states the severity the victim was put under.
  12. present: A spoken threat of harm states a possible injury consequence for the walker.
  13. present: The spoken threat of harm states severity and possible injury.
  14. present: Threatening the person with harm states a consequence of possible injury.
  15. present: The spoken threat of harm states a risk of injury beyond the shove itself.
  16. present: Threatening the pedestrian with harm states a severe consequence for that person.
  17. present: An explicit threat of harm states a risk of injury as a consequence of the encounter.
  18. present: Threatening the person with harm states a severe risk as a consequence of the encounter.
  19. present: An explicit threat of harm states severity for the victim.
  20. present: The explicit threat of harm states a risk of injury as a consequence.
  21. present: The spoken threat of harm states a risk of injury as a consequence for the pedestrian.
  22. present: Threatening the walker with harm states a consequence of possible injury, not just a generic scuffle.
  23. present: Threatening the individual with harm states intended injury as a consequence.
  24. present: The stated threat of harm records severity aimed at the pedestrian.
  25. present: Threatening the pedestrian with harm states a risk of injury as a consequence.