Unlocked-window burglary with a composite-theft pattern

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 the source is present. Cornell University Police names itself, and the City of Ithaca Police Department is identified as the responding 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: Cornell University Police identifies itself as the campus authority issuing the warning.
  2. present: The City of Ithaca Police Department is named as the agency that responded.
  3. present: Named police agencies, Ithaca PD and Cornell University Police, mark who is speaking and who responded.
  4. present: The closing line attributes protective advice to Cornell University Police.
  5. present: Ithaca Police Department appears as both the responding force and the tip contact.
  6. present: Cornell University Police is named in the signoff, which satisfies source.
  7. present: A university police unit and a city police department are both identified by name.
  8. present: The message cites the City of Ithaca Police Department as the responding authority.
  9. present: Cornell University Police urge the community, naming the campus sender.
  10. present: Source is present because Cornell University Police and Ithaca Police are named agencies.
  11. present: The alert names Cornell University Police as the campus voice behind the warning.
  12. present: Who is acting is clear: Ithaca Police responded and Cornell University Police issued the community advice.
  13. present: Cornell Police and the City of Ithaca Police Department are both named, so the issuing and responding authorities are identified.
  14. present: The text identifies Cornell University Police as the unit urging the community.
  15. present: Ithaca Police Department is named twice, which identifies an official authority.
  16. present: The university names its police department in the final paragraph.
  17. present: Sender information is present via Cornell University Police and the named city police department.
  18. present: The opening sentence credits the City of Ithaca Police Department as responders.
  19. present: Cornell University Police is an explicit campus police byline at the end.
  20. present: Named law enforcement, Cornell University Police, satisfies the source element.
  21. present: Both the responding city agency and Cornell University Police are identified by proper name.
  22. present: The warning is attributed to Cornell University Police, a named campus authority.
  23. present: Identification of source comes from naming Cornell University Police and Ithaca Police.
  24. present: The City of Ithaca Police Department is the named responding agency in the lead sentence.
  25. present: Cornell University Police names the institution's public safety authority as speaker.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Every read finds a specific hazard. The message names a reported burglary, stolen personal property, and a pattern of composite thefts from Greek houses.

  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: The text names a reported burglary, a specific crime type.
  2. present: Burglary is stated as the threat, along with theft of composites.
  3. present: The hazard is a burglary in which three males stole personal property.
  4. present: A burglary and theft of personal property are the named threats.
  5. present: It specifies burglary rather than a generic incident or emergency.
  6. present: Three males entered and stole property, which the alert labels a burglary.
  7. present: The crime is identified as burglary and as theft of composites from Greek houses.
  8. present: Reported burglary is a concrete hazard named in the opening sentence.
  9. present: The message says personal property was stolen during a burglary.
  10. present: Hazard is present because burglary and theft are specific threats.
  11. present: The alert describes an unlawful entry through a window and resulting theft, called a burglary.
  12. present: Composite theft from fraternity and sorority houses is named as a crime pattern.
  13. present: What happened is a burglary, not an unnamed situation.
  14. present: The victim report of stolen property is framed as a burglary.
  15. present: It names burglary and a pattern of theft, which are specific hazards.
  16. present: The threat is burglary at a residence, with property taken from inside.
  17. present: A reported burglary is the incident type throughout the message.
  18. present: Theft of composites and a burglary are both named criminal threats.
  19. present: The opening calls it a reported burglary, which specifies the hazard.
  20. present: Readers are told the crime is burglary with stolen personal property.
  21. present: Unlocked window entry and stolen property are presented as a burglary.
  22. present: The specific threat is burglary, plus an associated theft pattern.
  23. present: Hazard coding is met by the word burglary and the description of theft.
  24. present: Rather than a vague emergency, the alert names burglary as the threat.
  25. present: Three males stealing property after entering a building is labeled burglary.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All 25 reads agree location is given. The burglary is sited at 508 Thurston Ave, City of Ithaca, with added mention of fraternity and sorority houses.

  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 incident is placed at 508 Thurston Ave, City of Ithaca.
  2. present: A street address on Thurston Ave locates the crime.
  3. present: Location is specific: 508 Thurston Ave in Ithaca.
  4. present: 508 Thurston Ave is a precise street address.
  5. present: The burglary is sited in the City of Ithaca at a numbered house.
  6. present: Recipients are told where: 508 Thurston Ave.
  7. present: Fraternity and sorority houses are also named as places in the theft pattern.
  8. present: The building at 508 Thurston Ave is the scene given in the lead.
  9. present: City of Ithaca plus a street number identify where the event occurred.
  10. present: Location is present because a full street address is printed.
  11. present: The alert pinpoints 508 Thurston Ave rather than a vague campus area.
  12. present: Where is answered with Thurston Ave and the City of Ithaca.
  13. present: A first floor window at the Thurston Ave building supplies a place.
  14. present: The address 508 Thurston Ave is an unambiguous location.
  15. present: Named place: 508 Thurston Ave, City of Ithaca.
  16. present: The crime scene is a building on Thurston Ave in Ithaca.
  17. present: Street, number, and city are all stated.
  18. present: The text locates the burglary at 508 Thurston Ave.
  19. present: Ithaca and Thurston Ave together give a geographic fix.
  20. present: Readers get a house number on Thurston Ave.
  21. present: Location includes 508 Thurston Ave and a mention of Greek houses.
  22. present: The reported burglary is tied to a specific Ithaca street address.
  23. present: 508 Thurston Ave, City of Ithaca, is a complete place name.
  24. present: The message says the police responded at 508 Thurston Ave.
  25. present: A numbered address in the City of Ithaca satisfies location.
• Guidancepresent23/25

  Final assessment

  Nearly all reads find guidance present in the lock and close doors language and the 911 instruction. Two reads treat that wording as routine prevention and tips, but lock doors is an instruction to recipients.

  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 lock and close unattended doors and windows, a protective action.
  2. present: Cornell Police urge locking doors and windows to protect property.
  3. present: Residents should secure their buildings and safeguard property, which is an instruction.
  4. present: The community is instructed to lock unattended doors and windows.
  5. present: Recipients are told to report suspected criminal activity by dialing 911.
  6. absent: Locking doors here is general theft prevention after a finished burglary, not an emergency protective instruction, and the tip line is not guidance.
  7. present: The alert tells people to secure buildings and to report crime immediately.
  8. present: Locking unattended doors is an explicit action for recipients.
  9. present: Cornell University Police urge locking windows and doors, which is protective guidance.
  10. present: Guidance is present: lock and close unattended doors and windows.
  11. present: Recipients are directed to safeguard property and secure their buildings.
  12. present: The closing paragraph instructs locking doors and reporting via 911 or RAVE Guardian.
  13. present: Urging people to protect property by locking doors is an instruction, not a responder update.
  14. present: Call 911 and lock unattended doors are both actions asked of the audience.
  15. present: Residents should make every effort to secure their buildings, a clear directive.
  16. present: The protective action is to lock and close unattended doors and windows.
  17. present: Immediate reporting of suspected crime by dialing 911 is guidance to recipients.
  18. absent: This read treats the lockup advice as routine crime prevention and the 911 line as a tip request, not protective guidance during a live threat.
  19. present: Secure buildings, lock doors, and dial 911 are all recipient instructions.
  20. present: Urging the community to lock unattended doors counts as protective guidance.
  21. present: People are told to close windows and lock doors to protect property.
  22. present: The alert's advice to lock doors tells recipients what action to take.
  23. present: Guidance appears as lock and close unattended doors and windows and report by 911.
  24. present: Recipients are asked to safeguard property and to lock unattended entry points.
  25. present: Cornell Police tell the community to lock doors and windows and to report activity to 911.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that time is present. Two dated clock times are stated (March 18 at 11:17 a.m. and March 17 at 12:45 a.m.), and immediately is used as a recency cue.

  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: It timestamps the police response at approximately 11:17 a.m. on March 18, 2025.
  2. present: Two clock times appear, 11:17 a.m. on March 18 and 12:45 a.m. on March 17.
  3. present: The date March 18, 2025 and a morning clock time are given.
  4. present: The burglary itself is timed at 12:45 a.m. on March 17, 2025.
  5. present: Approximately 11:17 a.m. is a clock time, so time is present.
  6. present: March 18, 2025 dates the police response.
  7. present: Both a date and the word immediately appear as timing cues.
  8. present: The entry through the window is given as 12:45 a.m. on March 17.
  9. present: Time is present via March 18, 2025 at approximately 11:17 a.m.
  10. present: Two dated times and the adverb immediately convey when.
  11. present: The alert opens with On March 18, 2025 at approximately 11:17 a.m.
  12. present: A clock time for the crime (12:45 a.m.) and one for the response are both stated.
  13. present: Recency is also marked by immediately report.
  14. present: March 17, 2025 at 12:45 a.m. is an explicit when.
  15. present: Dated clock times for both the burglary and the police response satisfy time.
  16. present: The message gives 11:17 a.m. as the response time.
  17. present: Time cues include March 18, 2025 and approximately 11:17 a.m.
  18. present: The victim report includes 12:45 a.m. on March 17, 2025.
  19. present: Immediately appears as a recency cue, and two calendar dates are also given.
  20. present: When is answered with two calendar dates and two a.m. times.
  21. present: The lead sentence supplies a date and an approximate clock time.
  22. present: March 18, 2025 appears with 11:17 a.m., which is enough for time.
  23. present: The burglary hour is 12:45 a.m., a specific clock time.
  24. present: Timing is present because the text uses dates, clock times, and immediately.
  25. present: On March 18, 2025 at approximately 11:17 a.m. is a clear time stamp.
• Impactabsent7/25

  Final assessment

  Most reads find impact absent because stolen property only restates the burglary. A minority treats that loss as stated harm, but no severity language such as dangerous appears.

  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: Stolen property restates the burglary itself and no extra severity wording appears.
  2. absent: No language such as dangerous or life threatening describes what the burglary could do.
  3. present: The alert states personal property was stolen, which is harm to property.
  4. absent: Impact is absent: naming burglary and theft does not add consequence language.
  5. absent: There is no statement that the hazard is deadly, injurious, or otherwise severe.
  6. absent: The text reports a completed theft without saying how serious further harm could be.
  7. present: Stolen personal property is a stated consequence of the window entry, so impact is present.
  8. absent: Property stolen is the crime, not a separate impact claim like may cause injury.
  9. absent: Nothing in the message flags danger to people or escalating harm.
  10. absent: No consequence phrasing such as risk of injury or destructive appears.
  11. absent: Impact requires severity beyond the hazard name, and that extra layer is missing.
  12. present: Property loss is described directly: personal property was stolen from within.
  13. absent: The alert never says the burglary is dangerous or could injure anyone.
  14. absent: Harm is not characterized: there is no life threatening or similar cue.
  15. present: The text conveys impact by reporting that property was taken from residents.
  16. absent: Readers are not told what the hazard could do beyond the fact of a burglary.
  17. absent: Completed theft of property is incident description, not impact or severity language.
  18. absent: The message lacks explicit consequence wording of the kind the impact element needs.
  19. present: Harm to property is explicit because composites and personal property were stolen.
  20. absent: No potential harm statement such as could be deadly is present.
  21. present: A pattern of theft implies ongoing property loss, which is a consequence.
  22. absent: Severity is not conveyed; burglary and stolen items only name the offense.
  23. absent: Impact is not satisfied because the text never states consequences beyond the crime label.
  24. absent: There is no clearly implied human or property severity beyond naming the burglary.
  25. present: The burglary's effect is given: personal property was stolen from inside the building.