Anonymous email threat shared with multiple universities deemed not credible

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 the source is present; Cornell University Police are named as the investigating authority.

  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: Refers to "Cornell University Police" as investigating authority.
  2. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the issuer.
  3. present: Names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  4. present: It names "Cornell University Police", a responding authority.
  5. present: Names "Cornell University Police", identifying the investigating authority.
  6. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  7. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  8. present: Names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  9. present: Names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  10. present: It names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  11. present: It names "Cornell University Police".
  12. present: Names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  13. present: Names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  14. present: It names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  15. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  16. present: Names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  17. present: It names "Cornell University Police" as investigating authority.
  18. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  19. present: It names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  20. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the issuing authority.
  21. present: Names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  22. present: Names "Cornell University Police", a named agency.
  23. present: It names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
  24. present: It names "Cornell University Police", the investigating authority.
  25. present: It names "Cornell University Police" as the investigating authority.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous that the hazard is present; an anonymous email threatening violence is named.

  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: Names an "anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat hazard.
  2. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  3. present: Names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  4. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  5. present: Describes "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  6. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  7. present: It cites "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  8. present: States an "anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  9. present: States an "email threatening violence", a specific threat, later deemed not credible.
  10. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  11. present: It describes "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  12. present: Names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  13. present: States an "anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  14. present: It describes an "anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat hazard.
  15. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  16. present: Names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  17. present: It names an "anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat (now deemed not credible).
  18. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  19. present: It describes "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  20. present: It describes "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific named threat.
  21. present: States an "anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  22. present: Names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  23. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  24. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
  25. present: It names "an identical anonymous email threatening violence", a specific threat.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree a location is given, referencing campus and these campuses.

  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: References "these campuses" and "campus".
  2. present: It refers to "these campuses" and "to campus", a location reference.
  3. present: References "campus" and "these campuses", a location reference.
  4. present: It references "campus" and "these campus communities", place references.
  5. present: Says the threat is "against these campus communities" and "to campus", referencing campus.
  6. present: It says the threat was against "these campus communities" including Cornell, a place reference.
  7. present: It refers to "these campus communities" and "campus", a location reference.
  8. present: Says "against these campus communities" and "to campus", a location cue.
  9. present: Locates it on "campus".
  10. present: It says the threat targeted "these campus communities" and "campus".
  11. present: It refers to "these campus communities" and "to campus".
  12. present: Locates it at "these campus communities" and "to campus".
  13. present: Says "these campus communities" and "to campus", location references.
  14. present: It references "these campuses" and "campus" as the affected location.
  15. present: It refers to "campus" and "these campus communities", a location.
  16. present: References "these campus communities" and "campus", a location reference.
  17. present: It refers to "these campus communities" / "campus", a location.
  18. present: It locates it against "these campus communities" and "campus".
  19. present: It locates it on "campus" and "these campus communities".
  20. present: It references "these campuses" and "Cornell University", a campus location.
  21. present: Refers to "campus" and "to campus", a location cue.
  22. present: References "these campuses" and "campus" as the place.
  23. present: It locates it on "these campuses" including the Cornell campus.
  24. present: It references "these campuses" and "campus" as the place.
  25. present: It references "these campuses" and Cornell's campus.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous that guidance is present; community members are told to continue with scheduled activities.

  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: Advises members to "continue with scheduled activities", a guidance instruction.
  2. present: It tells recipients to "continue with scheduled activities".
  3. present: Tells community members to "continue with scheduled activities".
  4. present: It tells members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  5. present: Tells members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  6. present: It advises members to "continue with scheduled activities", an action instruction.
  7. present: It advises members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  8. present: Tells members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  9. present: Advises members to "continue with scheduled activities".
  10. present: It instructs members to "continue with scheduled activities".
  11. present: It tells members to "continue with scheduled activities", a directive action.
  12. present: Tells members to "continue with scheduled activities".
  13. present: Advises "members should continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  14. present: It advises community members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  15. present: It tells members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  16. present: Advises members to "continue with scheduled activities", a protective directive.
  17. present: It instructs members to "continue with scheduled activities", a directed action.
  18. present: It tells members "should continue with scheduled activities", a directed action given no credible threat.
  19. present: It instructs members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  20. present: It instructs community members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  21. present: Tells community members to "continue with scheduled activities", a directive to recipients.
  22. present: Advises members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  23. present: It advises members to "continue with scheduled activities", an instruction to recipients.
  24. present: It tells community members to "continue with scheduled activities".
  25. present: It tells members "should continue with scheduled activities", a directive to recipients.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree time is present via the recency cue at this 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: Says "at this time" and "continue", recency cues.
  2. present: It says "at this time", conveying present recency.
  3. present: Says "at this time", a recency cue.
  4. present: It uses "at this time" and "deemed it not to be credible", conveying recency.
  5. present: Uses "at this time", a recency cue.
  6. present: It says the threat was deemed not credible, with "at this time" as a recency cue.
  7. present: It says the threat was received and the email "received", with "at this time", recency cues.
  8. present: Says "at this time" and "Cornell community members should continue", recency cues.
  9. present: Uses "at this time", a recency cue.
  10. present: It says "at this time" and references the investigation as completed, recency cues.
  11. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
  12. present: Says "at this time" and "in the days ahead", conveying recency.
  13. present: Uses "at this time", a recency cue.
  14. present: It uses "at this time", a recency cue.
  15. present: It uses "at this time" and references the threat being investigated currently, a recency cue.
  16. present: Uses the recency cue "at this time".
  17. present: It says "at this time" and "in the days ahead", recency cues.
  18. present: It uses recency cues "at this time" describing there is no active threat.
  19. present: It says the threat is "not credible" and there is "no active threat to campus at this time", a recency cue.
  20. present: It says "at this time", a recency cue.
  21. present: Says the threat was investigated and "no active threat to campus at this time".
  22. present: Uses recency cue "at this time".
  23. present: The phrase "at this time" conveys present recency.
  24. present: It says "at this time" and "Earlier today", recency cues.
  25. present: It says police "have investigated" and "at this time" there is no active threat, a recency cue.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present unanimously across all 25 reads. The message describes an anonymous email threatening violence against campus communities, conveying a stated danger to people even as it is later deemed not credible.

  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: It notes the threat was not credible but states the hateful language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying harm.
  2. present: This deems the threat not credible but explicitly states the hateful threat is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, stating harm to people.
  3. present: States the threatening email included hateful language that is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying harm despite being not credible.
  4. present: It deems the threat not credible but states the hateful incendiary language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying harm to people.
  5. present: States the threats included hateful incendiary language that is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying harm.
  6. present: It says the threat was deemed not credible with no active threat but notes the hateful language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community which states an emotional harm.
  7. present: Notes the threat was deemed not credible but describes the hateful language as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, stating harm.
  8. present: Describes the threat as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community despite being not credible, stating emotional harm.
  9. present: Says the threat is not credible but describes the hateful threats as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, explicitly stating harm to people.
  10. present: It notes the threat is not credible but states the hateful threat is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, an explicit harm.
  11. present: States the threat was deemed not credible but describes the threats as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, stating emotional harm.
  12. present: It deems the threat not credible but states the hateful incendiary language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, explicitly stating harm.
  13. present: It says the threat is not credible but describes it as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, stating an emotional harm.
  14. present: States the threat is not credible but notes the hateful threatening language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying explicit harm.
  15. present: Says the threat is not credible but notes the hateful incendiary language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, a stated harm.
  16. present: States the threat is not credible but describes hateful incendiary language as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying harm.
  17. present: States the threat is not credible but says such threats with hateful incendiary language are deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, a stated harm.
  18. present: States the threat is not credible but describes the hateful language as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community.
  19. present: Says the threat is not credible but describes the threats as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, stating harm.
  20. present: States the threat was deemed not credible but notes the hateful incendiary language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying emotional harm.
  21. present: Says the threat is not credible but describes the hateful language as deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, a stated harm.
  22. present: States the threat was deemed not credible but notes the hateful language is deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying harm.
  23. present: Describes hateful incendiary threats that are deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, conveying emotional harm.
  24. present: States the email threatened violence and that such hateful threats are deeply stressful and hurtful to the community, a stated harm.
  25. present: It describes a threat of violence with hateful incendiary language that is deeply stressful and hurtful, stating harm to the community.