Package thefts with DoorDash piggyback pattern on West 112th/113th

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 source is present via Clery Crime Alert branding, Columbia University Public Safety naming, and tip contacts.

  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 informed campus safety authority.
  2. present: Clery Crime Alert branding plus Public Safety identifies the institutional sender.
  3. present: Source is present: Columbia University Public Safety and Clery Crime Alert framing.
  4. present: The header Clery Crime Alert functions as a campus timely-warning source tag.
  5. present: Public Safety phone 212-854-2797 and Columbia University Public Safety name the issuer.
  6. present: Columbia University is identified as the required Clery Act alerter in the disclaimer.
  7. present: Who is sending includes Columbia University Public Safety and Clery Crime Alert.
  8. present: Source satisfied by Columbia University Public Safety attribution in the lead.
  9. present: The alert credits Public Safety and references Columbia University Clery duty.
  10. present: Named campus safety office Columbia University Public Safety counts as source.
  11. present: Clery Crime Alert title marks an official university timely warning channel.
  12. present: Institutional source appears as Columbia University Public Safety throughout.
  13. present: Sender identification is Clery Crime Alert plus Public Safety contact paths.
  14. present: Clear source from Public Safety naming and Columbia University in the disclaimer.
  15. present: Branded Clery Crime Alert plus Public Safety establishes the originator.
  16. present: Public Safety is a named campus agency under the source rubric.
  17. present: The message identifies Columbia University Public Safety as the informed authority.
  18. present: Source cue is Clery Crime Alert with Public Safety in the opening narrative.
  19. present: Issuing body language includes Public Safety and Columbia Clery compliance email.
  20. present: University and campus public safety are both stated as related authorities.
  21. present: Columbia University Public Safety is explicit early in the package-theft notice.
  22. present: Clery Crime Alert and Public Safety together identify the campus channel.
  23. present: Source present via dual naming of Public Safety and Columbia University.
  24. present: The text frames an official Columbia Clery timely warning from Public Safety.
  25. present: Both Clery Crime Alert branding and Columbia University Public Safety establish source.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous present: burglary and package thefts are specifically named, including DoorDash pose and piggyback or intercom entry, not bare emergency labels.

  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 burglary and package thefts, both specifically named crime types.
  2. present: Burglary / Package Thefts in the header names the threat type.
  3. present: The threat is package theft by a suspect posing as a DoorDash delivery worker.
  4. present: Named hazards: burglary and package thefts across three residential buildings.
  5. present: Hazard present because package thefts and burglary are explicit, not bare incident.
  6. present: What happened is repeated package thefts with piggyback and intercom entry methods.
  7. present: Package thefts and burglary are the specific crime hazards on the flyer.
  8. present: The alert reports package thefts rather than a generic emergency or situation.
  9. present: Specific crime language: package thefts by a DoorDash-posing suspect.
  10. present: A suspect piggybacking to steal packages is described under burglary labeling.
  11. present: Hazard wording includes burglary and package thefts throughout the lead.
  12. present: The incident type is burglary framed as package thefts at three addresses.
  13. present: Named crimes burglary and package thefts specify the hazard clearly.
  14. present: Crime hazard is clear: package thefts using piggyback and intercom entry.
  15. present: Hazard is not generic; burglary and package thefts are called out.
  16. present: Burglary / Package Thefts is the dual named hazard line on the flyer.
  17. present: The body states three package-theft incidents committed by the same suspect.
  18. present: Hazard present: package thefts with DoorDash disguise and building entry tactics.
  19. present: Readers learn the threats are burglary-style package thefts, not vague incidents.
  20. present: Specific hazard names burglary and package thefts appear in the title block.
  21. present: DoorDash pose plus package removal are framed as burglary and package thefts.
  22. present: The crime hazards are package thefts under a burglary Clery label.
  23. present: Named threat package thefts satisfies the hazard element with concrete detail.
  24. present: What the community is warned about is package thefts posing as delivery.
  25. present: Burglary and package thefts are concrete hazard labels under Clery.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that 536 West 113th Street plus 511 and 531 West 112th Street locate all three incidents.

  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 536 West 113th Street and two West 112th Street addresses.
  2. present: 536 West 113th Street places the first package theft at a specific address.
  3. present: Where: 511 West 112th Street and 531 West 112th Street for the later incidents.
  4. present: Three street addresses on West 112th and West 113th localize the crimes.
  5. present: Address-level locations for all three thefts are present in the narrative.
  6. present: Location present via 536 West 113th, 511 West 112th, and 531 West 112th.
  7. present: The entry sites are concrete residential building addresses near campus.
  8. present: Named West Side street numbers locate each package-theft event.
  9. present: Geographic detail covers three building addresses across two streets.
  10. present: Campus-adjacent West 112th and West 113th addresses localize the warning.
  11. present: 536 West 113th Street is the first stated crime scene address.
  12. present: Place is multi-building: West 113th then two West 112th addresses.
  13. present: Readers are told the exact street addresses of the package thefts.
  14. present: Location element met by three named residential street addresses.
  15. present: West 112th Street and West 113th Street buildings fully answer where.
  16. present: The warning scope is three named buildings on two Morningside-area streets.
  17. present: Street addresses for each of the three incidents give multi-point location.
  18. present: Where the thefts occurred is stated as specific West 112th and 113th buildings.
  19. present: Concrete location: three Columbia-area residential addresses.
  20. present: Address-level places satisfy the location element without ambiguity.
  21. present: 536 West 113th Street and the two West 112th Street sites are specific.
  22. present: Location includes three numbered street addresses for the same suspect pattern.
  23. present: The text situates the crimes at named West Side apartment buildings.
  24. present: Named addresses on West 112th and West 113th locate every incident.
  25. present: West 112th and West 113th street addresses are unambiguous place references.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All reads find guidance in Harm Reduction Strategies: refuse piggyback, do not buzz unknowns, lock doors, and retrieve packages promptly.

  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: Harm Reduction Strategies instruct not to allow others to piggyback into buildings.
  2. present: Guidance includes do NOT buzz people into your building if you do not know them.
  3. present: Make sure the doors lock behind you every time is a protective action instruction.
  4. present: Protective tips: block piggybacking, refuse unknown buzz-ins, lock doors, retrieve packages promptly.
  5. present: Guidance present via Harm Reduction Strategies with concrete safety steps.
  6. present: Recipients are told to retrieve packages in a timely manner after delivery.
  7. present: Call Public Safety once in a safe location if you cannot stop a piggybacker.
  8. present: The alert directs people not to buzz unknown persons into residential buildings.
  9. present: Safety guidance lists locking entries, anti-piggyback behavior, and delivery awareness.
  10. present: Harm Reduction Strategies function as recipient-facing protective actions.
  11. present: Guidance is present: no piggyback, no unknown buzz-in, lock doors, timely package pickup.
  12. present: Protective instructions appear after the narrative under Harm Reduction Strategies.
  13. present: Readers are told what to do: secure doors and refuse piggyback entry.
  14. present: Guidance element met by anti-piggyback, lock, and package-retrieval instructions.
  15. present: Contacting Public Safety after unsafe piggybacking is protective guidance.
  16. present: The body tells people to keep doors locked on every entry and exit.
  17. present: Stay informed about delivery statuses and retrieve packages promptly is action.
  18. present: Actionable tips include partnered local pickup and carrier offices for safer delivery.
  19. present: Guidance is not only tip solicitation; harm reduction steps instruct self-protection.
  20. present: Do not buzz strangers in is a clear personal protective action.
  21. present: The strategies section instructs recipients how to reduce package-theft risk.
  22. present: Protective action language covers piggyback refusal, locking, and timely retrieval.
  23. present: Harm Reduction Strategies give multiple do-this instructions to the community.
  24. present: Recipients are guided to call Public Safety when stopping a piggyback feels unsafe.
  25. present: Guidance present through explicit lock, anti-piggyback, and retrieval steps.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous present: December 6, 2025 about 1:54 p.m. and December 13 about 10:00 and 10:04 p.m. are explicit temporal cues.

  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 December 6, 2025, at approximately 1:54 p.m. for the first theft.
  2. present: Date and clock time appear for December 13, 2025, about 10:00 p.m. and 10:04 p.m.
  3. present: Temporal cues include three dated incidents with afternoon and night clock times.
  4. present: The alert states approximately 1:54 p.m. on December 6, 2025.
  5. present: Time present via full dates plus approximate clock times for each event.
  6. present: When: December 6 around 1:54 p.m. and December 13 around 10:00 and 10:04 p.m.
  7. present: Clock times 1:54 p.m., 10:00 p.m., and 10:04 p.m. mark the incident windows.
  8. present: Calendar dates and approximate hours are both given for all three thefts.
  9. present: December 6 and December 13, 2025 anchor when the package thefts occurred.
  10. present: Time element met by dates and minute-level p.m. timestamps.
  11. present: The narrative includes approximately 1:54 p.m. as the first event time.
  12. present: Two December 13 times near 10:00 p.m. are additional temporal markers.
  13. present: Dates December 6 and 13, 2025 plus clock times satisfy time.
  14. present: Readers learn the crimes occurred on stated dates at stated approximate hours.
  15. present: Explicit clock times and calendar dates convey when for each building.
  16. present: Occurrence timing is approximately 1:54 p.m. on December 6 for the first site.
  17. present: The second and third incidents are timed to about 10:00 p.m. and 10:04 p.m.
  18. present: Time is not missing: dates and p.m. times are written out for each theft.
  19. present: December 6, 2025 and 1:54 p.m. are clear temporal references.
  20. present: Three timed incidents bookend a multi-day package-theft pattern.
  21. present: The alert timestamps each package theft with a date and approximate clock time.
  22. present: Date and approximate time of occurrence are present for every listed address.
  23. present: Temporal language includes December dates and approximately timed p.m. hours.
  24. present: When is answered by dated clock times for all three residential entries.
  25. present: Full dates with afternoon and night times satisfy the time element.
• Impactabsent5/25

  Final assessment

  Majority absent (20 of 25): naming package thefts and burglary without separate severity language fails impact. Minority treat Clery serious or continuous threat boilerplate as impact.

  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: Burglary and package thefts are named without separate severity or harm wording.
  2. absent: No line states injuries, danger level, or what the thefts could do to people.
  3. absent: Impact is absent beyond naming the crime types and stolen packages.
  4. present: Clery disclaimer says serious or continuous threat to the community, which is severity language.
  5. absent: Package removal is described factually without consequence phrasing such as dangerous.
  6. absent: The text does not say the offender is armed or that residents face physical injury risk.
  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: Piggyback entry and package theft are events, not stated consequences or severity.
  10. absent: No injuries, no loss amount, and no life-safety severity phrase appear in the body.
  11. absent: DoorDash disguise is modus detail, not impact severity language.
  12. absent: Naming package thefts and burglary does not by itself satisfy impact.
  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 saying how severe the outcomes were.
  16. absent: Packages taken describes property loss as a fact of the hazard, 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 building damage are described.
  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 crime type names.
  22. absent: Impact absent: no severity adjective and no harm-to-people clause in the narrative.
  23. present: Clery serious or continuous threat clause states why the community faces impact.
  24. absent: Package thefts and burglary names alone do not equal impact under the rubric.
  25. absent: No explicit statement of potential injury, danger, or property damage severity.