Pickup truck stolen from a Town of Ithaca parking lot

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 source is present. Cornell University Police Department is named as the notified agency and as the voice urging precautions, and Public Safety Communications is listed as a contact.

  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: The text names the Cornell University Police Department as the agency that received the report and then addresses the community.
  2. present: Cornell University Police Department is identified both as the notified agency and as the voice urging community precautions.
  3. present: The issuing authority is clear because Cornell University Police and the Public Safety Communications Center are named.
  4. present: The message attributes the notice and the safety advice to the Cornell University Police Department.
  5. present: A named campus police department appears as the notified agency and as the body issuing the property advice.
  6. present: Cornell University Police Department and its Public Safety Communications Center identify who is speaking and whom to call.
  7. present: The sender is identifiable as Cornell University Police, which both received the report and urges precautions.
  8. present: Cornell University Police Department is named as the authority throughout the message.
  9. present: Who is sending it is the Cornell University Police Department, also listing Public Safety Communications for tips.
  10. present: A university police department is named as the notified and advising agency, which satisfies source.
  11. present: Cornell University Police Department identifies the campus law enforcement authority behind the notice.
  12. present: The alert names Cornell University Police and the Public Safety Communications Center as the responsible campus agencies.
  13. present: Source is present because Cornell University Police Department is the named campus agency.
  14. present: Cornell University Police Department is named as the agency that was notified and that now urges the community.
  15. present: The university police department is named twice as the institutional source of the notice.
  16. present: Who is sending it is Cornell University Police, with a Public Safety Communications Center phone number attached.
  17. present: The responding and issuing authority is the Cornell University Police Department.
  18. present: Cornell University is named through its Police Department, which is enough to identify the source.
  19. present: The Cornell University Police Department is the named campus agency throughout.
  20. present: Source is satisfied by naming Cornell University Police Department and Public Safety Communications.
  21. present: Cornell University Police Department is identified as the campus authority in the opening and closing.
  22. present: A campus police agency, Cornell University Police Department, is named as the notifying and advising body.
  23. present: The message identifies Cornell University Police as the agency that was notified and that now addresses the community.
  24. present: Cornell University Police Department and Public Safety Communications Center name the campus safety source.
  25. present: Who issued the notice is the Cornell University Police Department, named as the notified department and the advising voice.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that motor vehicle theft is a specific named hazard rather than a generic incident or situation.

  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 specifies a motor vehicle theft, which is a concrete crime rather than a vague incident.
  2. present: The hazard is named outright as motor vehicle theft of a pickup truck.
  3. present: Motor vehicle theft is a specific threat, not a generic emergency or situation.
  4. present: The threat is identified as a motor vehicle theft, not a vague incident.
  5. present: What happened is specified as theft of a motor vehicle.
  6. present: Motor vehicle theft names the specific crime.
  7. present: A white Toyota Tacoma theft is still framed as motor vehicle theft, a specific hazard.
  8. present: The hazard is a motor vehicle theft from a parking lot.
  9. present: The threat is specifically motor vehicle theft, not an unspecified emergency.
  10. present: Motor vehicle theft is a named crime type, so the hazard is specific.
  11. present: The opening sentence names motor vehicle theft as what occurred.
  12. present: Pickup truck theft is specified as motor vehicle theft, a concrete hazard.
  13. present: What the threat is is motor vehicle theft of a Toyota Tacoma.
  14. present: A motor vehicle theft is the specific crime reported.
  15. present: Hazard is motor vehicle theft, which is a specific threat category.
  16. present: The crime is identified as motor vehicle theft of a white 2002 Toyota Tacoma.
  17. present: Motor vehicle theft is named in the first sentence, satisfying a specific hazard.
  18. present: The threat is a stolen motor vehicle, specified as theft rather than a generic incident.
  19. present: Motor vehicle theft is a specific named hazard.
  20. present: Readers learn the event is a motor vehicle theft, a specific crime.
  21. present: The first sentence names motor vehicle theft as the crime.
  22. present: Hazard is specific: theft of a motor vehicle, a white Toyota Tacoma.
  23. present: Motor vehicle theft is stated as the nature of the crime.
  24. present: The threat is specified as a motor vehicle theft.
  25. present: Motor vehicle theft is a specific named hazard, not a generic situation.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads find a specific place: a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.

  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 theft is placed at a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.
  2. present: A street address is given: 103 Farrier Road in the Town of Ithaca.
  3. present: Location is a named parking lot at 103 Farrier Road.
  4. present: It locates the event at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.
  5. present: The parking lot at 103 Farrier Road supplies a precise place.
  6. present: 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca, is an address, not a vague campus reference.
  7. present: The place is a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road in the Town of Ithaca.
  8. present: 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca, is a specific street location.
  9. present: Readers are told the theft was from a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road.
  10. present: The location is an address: 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.
  11. present: Place is given as a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road.
  12. present: Town of Ithaca and 103 Farrier Road together give a locatable site.
  13. present: The parking lot at 103 Farrier Road is a specific location.
  14. present: 103 Farrier Road in the Town of Ithaca is a street address.
  15. present: The alert cites a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.
  16. present: Location is specific: a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road.
  17. present: 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca, tells readers where the theft happened.
  18. present: A parking lot at a numbered Farrier Road address is a clear place cue.
  19. present: The scene is a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.
  20. present: Where is answered with 103 Farrier Road in the Town of Ithaca.
  21. present: 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca, is a precise location.
  22. present: The parking lot at 103 Farrier Road locates the event.
  23. present: Town of Ithaca and 103 Farrier Road give both municipality and street address.
  24. present: A parking lot at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca, is a specific place.
  25. present: The theft is from a parking lot at 103 Farrier Road, Town of Ithaca.
• Guidancepresent22/25

  Final assessment

  Most reads find protective instruction in the lock vehicles and dial 911 advice. A small minority treats that closing language as after the fact prevention and a tip request, not live 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: Recipients are told to close and lock vehicle windows and doors, keep keys out of unoccupied cars, and dial 911 to report suspected crime.
  2. present: The police instruct people to lock vehicle windows and doors and to report suspected activity by dialing 911.
  3. present: Closing and locking vehicle windows and doors plus dialing 911 are protective actions directed at the community.
  4. present: Guidance includes locking vehicle doors and windows and immediately reporting crime by calling 911.
  5. present: The community is told to lock vehicles, not leave keys inside, and use 911 or RAVE Guardian to report crime.
  6. absent: The closing advice is general crime prevention after a completed theft, and the tip line is not a protective action for this event.
  7. present: Recipients are instructed to close and lock vehicle windows and doors and to dial 911 for suspected criminal activity.
  8. present: Protective steps are listed: lock vehicle windows and doors, do not leave keys in cars, and report by 911.
  9. present: The community is urged to lock vehicle windows and doors and immediately report suspected activity by dialing 911.
  10. present: Instructions tell people to lock vehicles, withhold keys from unoccupied cars, and call 911.
  11. present: Locking vehicle doors and windows and dialing 911 are explicit actions for recipients.
  12. present: Recipients are told how to protect property: close and lock vehicle windows and doors and report via 911 or RAVE Guardian.
  13. present: The closing paragraph tells the community to lock vehicles and to report suspected crime immediately by calling 911.
  14. absent: Asking for tips and offering standing lock your car reminders is not an instruction for a live protective action.
  15. present: Closing and locking vehicle windows and doors is a lock doors style instruction to recipients.
  16. present: People are told not to leave keys in unoccupied vehicles and to dial 911 for suspected criminal activity.
  17. present: The police urge locking vehicle windows and doors and immediately reporting suspected crime by 911.
  18. present: Recipients get actionable advice: lock vehicles, keep keys out, and report by 911 or the RAVE Guardian app.
  19. present: Protective action is present in the lock vehicles and dial 911 instructions.
  20. present: Closing and locking vehicle windows and doors is an instruction to take a protective step.
  21. absent: The 911 line is for future suspected activity, and lock your car is prevention, not guidance for this already finished theft.
  22. present: Recipients are instructed to lock vehicle windows and doors and to report suspected crime immediately.
  23. present: Dialing 911 and using RAVE Guardian to report suspected criminal activity are protective reporting instructions.
  24. present: The community is told to close and lock vehicle windows and doors and not leave keys in unoccupied cars.
  25. present: Protective actions include locking vehicle windows and doors and immediately reporting suspected crime by dialing 911.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Broad agreement that multiple dates and clock times, including 8:30 a.m. on April 19, 2025 and the theft window, satisfy 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: Dates and clock times appear for the notification, the theft window, and when the truck was last seen.
  2. present: The alert timestamps the notice at about 8:30 a.m. on April 19, 2025, plus a dated theft interval.
  3. present: Clock times include 8:30 a.m., 5:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. across dated days.
  4. present: Recency is given with April 19, 2025 at approximately 8:30 a.m. and an occurrence window.
  5. present: Several dates and times mark when police were notified and when the truck disappeared.
  6. present: The text gives April 15 and April 19 dates with 5:00 p.m., 7:00 a.m., and 8:30 a.m.
  7. present: When is explicit: notification at about 8:30 a.m. on April 19, 2025, and a window from April 15 at 5:00 p.m. to April 19 at 7:00 a.m.
  8. present: Multiple clock times and calendar dates establish when police learned of the crime and when it occurred.
  9. present: Time cues include approximately 8:30 a.m. on April 19, 2025, and last seen at 5:00 p.m. on April 15, 2025.
  10. present: The theft window between April 15 at 5:00 p.m. and April 19 at 7:00 a.m. is a clear time range.
  11. present: April 19, 2025, at approximately 8:30 a.m. timestamps the police notification.
  12. present: Last seen timing on April 15, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. plus the 8:30 a.m. notification supply recency.
  13. present: Dates and hours are given for notification, occurrence, and last observation of the truck.
  14. present: The theft occurred between April 15, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. and April 19, 2025 at 7:00 a.m., a stated time window.
  15. present: Approximately 8:30 a.m. on April 19, 2025 is a clock time for the report.
  16. present: Several timestamps, including 7:00 a.m. on April 19, 2025, mark when the theft window closed.
  17. present: Time is present through dated clock times for notification and for the theft interval.
  18. present: On April 19, 2025, at approximately 8:30 a.m. is an explicit when.
  19. present: The last seen time of April 15, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. is a recency marker.
  20. present: The occurrence window from April 15 at 5:00 p.m. to April 19 at 7:00 a.m. conveys when.
  21. present: Clock times at 8:30 a.m., 5:00 p.m., and 7:00 a.m. appear with calendar dates.
  22. present: Notification time of approximately 8:30 a.m. on April 19, 2025 fulfills the time element.
  23. present: Last seen on April 15, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. is a dated clock time.
  24. present: Several dated times, including 7:00 a.m. on April 19, 2025, mark the incident window.
  25. present: Time is present via April 19, 2025 at approximately 8:30 a.m. and the April 15 to April 19 theft window.
• Impactabsent4/25

  Final assessment

  Most reads find no impact because naming a stolen truck restates the theft and no severity language appears. A few treat the missing vehicle or protect their property as implied property harm.

  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: The message names the theft and the missing truck but never states how serious the hazard is or what further harm it could cause.
  2. absent: No severity language such as dangerous or life threatening appears, only the crime name and a vehicle description.
  3. absent: Stolen restates the theft itself and does not add a consequence or severity statement.
  4. absent: Potential harm to people or further property loss is not described beyond naming the completed theft.
  5. absent: There is no statement that the theft is dangerous, injurious, or otherwise severe.
  6. absent: Impact is not conveyed; the truck being stolen is the hazard itself, not a stated consequence.
  7. absent: The alert never says what the theft could do to people or how severe it might become.
  8. present: The text states the consequence as a stolen white 2002 Toyota Tacoma, which is harm to property already realized.
  9. absent: Severity or future harm is not stated; protect their property is prevention talk, not an impact claim.
  10. absent: Nothing describes the theft as dangerous, injurious, or otherwise consequential beyond the crime label.
  11. absent: No phrase conveys potential injury, danger, or other severity beyond reporting a completed theft.
  12. absent: The message does not say the situation is dangerous or that anyone could be harmed.
  13. present: Loss of a described pickup truck is stated as the property harm that resulted from the theft.
  14. absent: There is no wording about deadly risk, injury, or similar consequences.
  15. absent: Impact fails because the text never states what the theft could do beyond naming the stolen truck.
  16. absent: No consequence language such as damaging, dangerous, or may cause injury is used.
  17. absent: The completed theft is described, but no severity or potential further harm is stated.
  18. absent: Naming a stolen Tacoma does not add an impact statement beyond the hazard itself.
  19. present: Telling people to protect their property implies a continuing risk of property loss from similar thefts.
  20. absent: There is no explicit or strongly implied statement of injury risk or other severity.
  21. absent: Impact is absent because the alert never describes what the theft could do to people or property beyond the crime name.
  22. absent: No wording labels the event dangerous, likely to injure, or likely to cause further harm.
  23. absent: The stolen vehicle description is identifying information, not a statement of potential consequences.
  24. present: The alert reports that a vehicle was stolen, which is an explicit property consequence of the crime.
  25. absent: The text never states severity or what the theft could do, so impact is not met.