Stalking timely warning involving Broadway and Carman gate locations

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.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree Clery Crime Alert and Department of Public Safety identify the 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. present: Columbia University Public Safety is named as the receiving and tip-receiving authority.
  2. present: Clery Crime Alert branding identifies the official campus timely-warning product.
  3. present: Source is present via Clery Crime Alert and Public Safety contact 212-854-2797.
  4. present: The flyer attributes the notice to Columbia University Department of Public Safety.
  5. present: Public Safety is named for tips and as the office that received the report.
  6. present: Columbia University appears in the Clery disclaimer as the required alerter.
  7. present: Who issued it is clear from Clery Crime Alert and Public Safety naming.
  8. present: Source satisfied by Department of Public Safety references throughout.
  9. present: The alert credits Public Safety and Columbia University Clery compliance.
  10. present: Named campus public safety office counts as the issuing authority.
  11. present: Clery Crime Alert is an explicit official-product label at the top.
  12. present: Institutional source includes Clery Crime Alert title and Public Safety.
  13. present: Sender identity is Clery Crime Alert channel plus Public Safety content.
  14. present: Clear source: Clery Crime Alert opening and Public Safety tip line.
  15. present: Branded Clery Crime Alert header identifies the campus warning product.
  16. present: Public Safety is a named campus agency under the source rubric.
  17. present: The message identifies Public Safety as the informed campus authority.
  18. present: Source cue is Clery Crime Alert with Public Safety in the report language.
  19. present: Issuing body language includes Public Safety and Columbia Clery director contact.
  20. present: University and public safety naming together establish the originator.
  21. present: Columbia University Department of Public Safety is explicit when the incident was reported.
  22. present: Clery Crime Alert and Public Safety together identify the campus channel.
  23. present: Source present because the text is a Clery Crime Alert with Public Safety paths.
  24. present: The text frames an official Columbia Clery timely warning from Public Safety.
  25. present: Both Clery Crime Alert branding and Public Safety naming establish source.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous that stalking since September 2024 is a specific named hazard.

  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: Hazard is stalking, specifically a reported stalking pattern since September 2024.
  2. present: Stalking in the header names the crime threat type.
  3. present: The threat is stalking by a non-affiliate approaching a student at multiple sites.
  4. present: Named hazard: stalking at on and off campus locations including Starbucks and Carman gate.
  5. present: Hazard present because stalking is explicit, not a bare emergency label.
  6. present: What happened is repeated unwanted approaches of a Columbia student.
  7. present: Stalking with approaches of other community members is the specific crime hazard.
  8. present: The alert reports stalking rather than a generic incident or situation.
  9. present: Specific crime language: stalking reported since September 2024.
  10. present: Subject approaching the complainant and others reinforces the stalking hazard.
  11. present: Hazard wording is Stalking near Broadway Starbucks and Carman gate.
  12. present: The incident type is stalking with multi-location approaches.
  13. present: Named crime stalking specifies the hazard clearly for recipients.
  14. present: Crime hazard is clear: stalking by a non-affiliate at known campus-area spots.
  15. present: Hazard is not generic; stalking is the stated Clery crime.
  16. present: Stalking is the named hazard on the flyer title line.
  17. present: The body states reported stalking occurring since September 2024.
  18. present: Hazard present: stalking pattern at Starbucks and Carman gate.
  19. present: Readers learn the danger type is stalking of community members.
  20. present: Specific hazard name stalking appears in the title and narrative.
  21. present: Unwanted approaches at named places are framed as stalking.
  22. present: The crime hazard is stalking involving Broadway and Carman gate locations.
  23. present: Named threat stalking satisfies the hazard element with concrete pattern detail.
  24. present: What the community is warned about is stalking near campus gates and Starbucks.
  25. present: Stalking is a concrete hazard label under Clery, not a vague emergency.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Consensus that Starbucks at 2929 Broadway and Carman gate give concrete places.

  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: Location includes the Starbucks at 2929 Broadway and the Carman gate on West 114th.
  2. present: 2929 Broadway places one approach site at a specific address.
  3. present: Where: Carman gate at West 114th Street and Broadway.
  4. present: Both on and off campus locations are stated for the stalking pattern.
  5. present: Address-level and gate locations are present in the narrative.
  6. present: Location present via Starbucks 2929 Broadway and Carman gate West 114th.
  7. present: The subject is known to frequent the Starbucks at 2929 Broadway.
  8. present: Named Broadway and Carman gate places locate the approaches.
  9. present: Geographic detail covers a street address and a named campus gate.
  10. present: Morningside-area Broadway and West 114th localize the warning.
  11. present: 2929 Broadway is a specific named approach site.
  12. present: Place is multi-site: Broadway Starbucks plus Carman gate.
  13. present: Readers are told exact campus-area places of the stalking contacts.
  14. present: Location element met by named Starbucks address and Carman gate.
  15. present: Broadway and West 114th Street fully answer where the approaches occur.
  16. present: The warning scope is Broadway Starbucks and Carman gate on West 114th.
  17. present: Street address and campus gate give multi-point location.
  18. present: Where the subject approaches people is stated as Starbucks and Carman gate.
  19. present: Concrete location: 2929 Broadway and Carman gate at West 114th and Broadway.
  20. present: Address-level and named-gate places satisfy the location element.
  21. present: 2929 Broadway and Carman gate are specific sites.
  22. present: Location includes a numbered Broadway address and a named campus gate.
  23. present: The text situates the stalking at named Broadway and Carman locations.
  24. present: Named places on Broadway and West 114th locate the pattern.
  25. present: Starbucks address and Carman gate are unambiguous place references.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All reads find Safety Tips on reporting, Safe Haven, and stranger caution as guidance.

  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: Safety Tips instruct people to trust their gut and report uncomfortable contacts immediately.
  2. present: Guidance includes do not give identifying information to a stranger.
  3. present: If followed, enter an open business and let an employee know something is wrong is protective action.
  4. present: Protective tips: report unwanted interactions, use Safe Haven Red Lion sites, wait for help.
  5. present: Guidance present via Safety Tips with concrete recipient-facing steps.
  6. present: Recipients are told to report unwanted interactions to Public Safety at 212-854-2797.
  7. present: Stay inside until help arrives is a clear protective instruction.
  8. present: The alert directs people to phone Public Safety or police from a Safe Haven business.
  9. present: Safety guidance lists stranger caution, Safe Haven use, and immediate reporting.
  10. present: Safety Tips function as recipient-facing protective actions.
  11. present: Guidance is present: trust gut, refuse identifying info, enter businesses if followed.
  12. present: Protective instructions appear after the narrative under Safety Tips.
  13. present: Readers are told what to do when someone ignores wishes to be left alone.
  14. present: Guidance element met by reporting, Safe Haven, and stranger-danger instructions.
  15. present: Contacting Public Safety for unwanted interactions is protective guidance.
  16. present: The body tells people to look for the Red Lion logo on nearby businesses.
  17. present: Enter an open business if followed is an actionable self-protection step.
  18. present: Actionable tips include waiting inside until security or police respond.
  19. present: Guidance is not only tip solicitation; Safety Tips instruct self-protection.
  20. present: Report uncomfortable conversations immediately is a clear personal protective action.
  21. present: The tips section instructs recipients how to reduce stalking-related risk.
  22. present: Protective action language covers reporting, Safe Haven entry, and staying put for help.
  23. present: Safety Tips give multiple do-this instructions to the community.
  24. present: Recipients are guided to call Public Safety or police from screened Safe Haven sites.
  25. present: Guidance present through explicit report, Safe Haven, and stranger-caution steps.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Agreement that since September 2024 and November 20, 2024 report date supply time.

  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: Time includes since September 2024 for the ongoing stalking pattern.
  2. present: Date appears: reported to Public Safety on Wednesday, November 20, 2024.
  3. present: Temporal cues include September 2024 start and November 20, 2024 report date.
  4. present: The alert states stalking occurring since September 2024.
  5. present: Time present via month-year onset and full report date.
  6. present: When: since September 2024, reported November 20, 2024.
  7. present: November 20, 2024 is an explicit calendar date for the report.
  8. present: A multi-month window since September 2024 is a clear temporal frame.
  9. present: September 2024 anchors when the stalking pattern began.
  10. present: Time element met by dated report and multi-month duration language.
  11. present: The narrative includes Wednesday, November 20, 2024 as the report day.
  12. present: Ongoing pattern since September 2024 is an additional temporal marker.
  13. present: Date November 20, 2024 plus since September 2024 satisfy time.
  14. present: Readers learn when the pattern began and when it was reported.
  15. present: Explicit calendar date and month-year onset convey when.
  16. present: Occurrence timing spans since September 2024 through the November report.
  17. present: The report date of November 20, 2024 is a firm temporal anchor.
  18. present: Time is not missing: dates and duration are written out.
  19. present: November 20, 2024 and since September 2024 are clear temporal references.
  20. present: Report date plus multi-month window bookend the pattern timeline.
  21. present: The alert timestamps the report to Wednesday, November 20, 2024.
  22. present: Date of report and onset month are both present.
  23. present: Temporal language includes September 2024 and November 20, 2024.
  24. present: When is answered by since September 2024 and the November 20 report date.
  25. present: Full report date with multi-month onset satisfies the time element.
• Impactabsent5/25

  Final assessment

  Majority finds impact absent; not violent in nature undercuts injury impact, while a minority cites Clery serious or continuous threat boilerplate.

  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: Stalking is named without separate severity or harm-to-people consequence wording.
  2. absent: The text states interactions have not been violent in nature, undercutting injury impact.
  3. absent: Impact is absent beyond naming stalking and unwanted approaches.
  4. present: Clery disclaimer says serious or continuous threat to the community, which is severity language.
  5. absent: Approaches and attempted interactions are events, not stated injury or danger consequences.
  6. absent: No line states injuries, assault, or life-threatening outcomes.
  7. absent: Impact element fails under a strict reading that hazard names alone do not count.
  8. present: Serious or continuous threat in the Clery notice conveys community-level impact.
  9. absent: Not violent in nature is explicit non-violence, not impact severity for people.
  10. absent: No injuries, no weapon, and no physical harm phrase appear in the body.
  11. absent: Suspect description is identification detail, not impact severity language.
  12. absent: Naming stalking does not by itself satisfy impact under the rubric.
  13. present: The disclaimer frames the crimes as a serious or continuous community threat.
  14. absent: Impact is not conveyed with words like dangerous, life-threatening, or may cause harm.
  15. absent: The body reports what happened without stating severe outcomes for people.
  16. absent: Unwanted interactions describe the hazard pattern, not impact severity.
  17. absent: Strict rubric: hazard labels without consequence language yield I absent.
  18. present: Serious or continuous threat language can be read as explicit community impact.
  19. absent: No secondary effects such as injuries treated or property damage appear.
  20. absent: The alert stops short of stating what the hazard could do beyond naming it.
  21. absent: Consequence language for people is missing outside the crime type name.
  22. absent: Impact absent: no severity adjective and no harm-to-people clause beyond not violent.
  23. present: Clery serious or continuous threat clause states why the community faces impact.
  24. absent: Stalking name alone does not equal impact under the rubric.
  25. absent: No explicit statement of potential injury or physical danger severity.