Off-campus attempted robbery on Williams Street

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 Act Safety Alert branding and GTPD 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: Clery Act Safety Alert brands the flyer as an official Clery timely warning.
  2. present: Georgia Tech Police Department is named for tips while APD investigates.
  3. present: Source includes Clery Act Safety Alert title and GTPD contact instructions.
  4. present: GTPD phone and email identify the campus police reporting path.
  5. present: Clery Act Safety Alert is an explicit institutional product signature.
  6. present: Who is sending is the Clery Act Safety Alert channel with GTPD tip lines.
  7. present: Institutional source present via Clery branding and Georgia Tech Police naming.
  8. present: The flyer is framed as a Clery Act Safety Alert from campus public safety.
  9. present: Source satisfied by Clery product branding plus GTPD safety contacts.
  10. present: Readers can attribute the notice to Georgia Tech Clery and GTPD guidance.
  11. present: Named campus police GTPD appears in See Something and safety blocks.
  12. present: Clery Act Safety Alert opening identifies the official warning product.
  13. present: Sender identity is clear from Clery Act Safety Alert and GTPD references.
  14. present: Campus police contact numbers tag GTPD as the institutional authority.
  15. present: Source present: Clery Act Safety Alert header and Georgia Tech Police.
  16. present: The alert is an official Clery flyer with GTPD safety resources.
  17. present: Issuing brand is Clery Act Safety Alert with GTPD operational content.
  18. present: GTPD is named for reporting on this attempted robbery flyer.
  19. present: Clery Act Safety Alert plus GTPD contacts meet the source element.
  20. present: Who issued it is conveyed by the Clery Act Safety Alert format.
  21. present: Branded Clery title and Georgia Tech Police references establish source.
  22. present: The notice attributes itself as a Clery Act Safety Alert with GTPD numbers.
  23. present: Source element met by Clery Act Safety Alert and repeated GTPD naming.
  24. present: Official campus Clery product and GTPD tip paths identify the sender.
  25. present: Clear source from Clery Act Safety Alert and GTPD safety section.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous present: Off Campus Attempted Robbery is specifically named with a pocket-grab narrative.

  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: Off Campus Attempted Robbery names the specific crime threat.
  2. present: Hazard is attempted robbery: a man grabbed pockets and searched for items.
  3. present: The flyer labels the event Attempted Robbery, a concrete crime hazard.
  4. present: Named threat is attempted robbery on Williams Street.
  5. present: Hazard present because attempted robbery is specified, not bare emergency.
  6. present: What happened is an attempted street robbery of a walking student.
  7. present: Pocket grabbing and searching make the attempted robbery clear.
  8. present: The subject and description both name attempted robbery.
  9. present: Attempted robbery is a specific public-safety hazard.
  10. present: Readers learn the danger type is attempted robbery, not a vague incident.
  11. present: Hazard wording: Off Campus Attempted Robbery on Williams Street.
  12. present: A man approached from behind, grabbed pockets, and searched them.
  13. present: Specific crime hazard: attempted robbery with nothing taken.
  14. present: Names Attempted Robbery rather than only incident or situation.
  15. present: The alert concerns an attempted robbery of a student pedestrian.
  16. present: Threat type is attempted robbery on a public street.
  17. present: Attempted Robbery is the stated Clery hazard on the flyer.
  18. present: Hazard element met by explicit attempted robbery labeling and narrative.
  19. present: A pocket-search street crime is the named attempted robbery threat.
  20. present: What the community is warned about is an off-campus attempted robbery.
  21. present: The description recounts grabbing and searching pockets, defining robbery attempt.
  22. present: Incident type Attempted Robbery is the specific hazard name.
  23. present: Named criminal hazard is attempted robbery between Eighth and Abercrombie.
  24. present: Hazard present: attempted robbery with suspect fleeing north on Williams.
  25. present: The flyer titles it Attempted Robbery rather than a generic emergency.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous agreement that Williams Street between Eighth Street and Abercrombie Place locates the attempt.

  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 is Williams Street between Eighth Street and Abercrombie Place.
  2. present: Incident Location names a street segment with bounding cross streets.
  3. present: Where: Williams Street between Eighth Street and Abercrombie Place.
  4. present: The attempted robbery is fixed to a named street block.
  5. present: Location present via Williams Street and the Eighth to Abercrombie span.
  6. present: Suspect ran north on Williams Street towards Eighth Street.
  7. present: Named street segment places the crime geographically.
  8. present: Williams, Eighth, and Abercrombie streets situate the walking path.
  9. present: Readers are told the scene is Williams Street near Abercrombie Place.
  10. present: Place language includes street name and two bounding streets.
  11. present: Williams Street between Eighth and Abercrombie is a specific location.
  12. present: Geographic detail covers the block and flight direction on Williams.
  13. present: Location element met by Incident Location street segment.
  14. present: The warning pins the crime to Williams Street between named cross streets.
  15. present: Street names Williams, Eighth, and Abercrombie localize the event.
  16. present: Where the student was attacked is southbound Williams toward Abercrombie.
  17. present: Concrete place: Williams Street between Eighth Street and Abercrombie Place.
  18. present: Named street block satisfies location.
  19. present: The text situates the attempted robbery on Williams Street.
  20. present: Street segment with cross streets is an unambiguous place reference.
  21. present: Incident Location line answers where the attempted robbery occurred.
  22. present: Location includes Williams Street block and northbound flight toward Eighth.
  23. present: Williams Street segment is specific enough for L present.
  24. present: The site of the attempted robbery is explicitly the named street block.
  25. present: Named streets fully answer where.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  All reads find guidance in See Something messaging plus Additional Safety Information protective tips.

  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: See Something, Say Something directs recipients to report concern to GTPD.
  2. present: Safety tips tell people to walk in well-lit areas and with a friend or group.
  3. present: Guidance includes awareness and immediately report suspicious activity.
  4. present: Recipients are told to notify GTPD if something prompts concern.
  5. present: Protective options include Stingerette rides and GTPD safety escorts.
  6. present: Download the LiveSafe app is actionable safety guidance.
  7. present: The flyer lists concrete personal safety steps after the robbery narrative.
  8. present: Report tips to Crime Stoppers and GTPD is instructional content.
  9. present: Walk with a friend and program GTPD number are protective instructions.
  10. present: Guidance present via Additional Safety Information for Georgia Tech.
  11. present: Community members are directed to report suspicious activity immediately.
  12. present: See Something, Say Something is recipient-facing reporting guidance.
  13. present: Safety escorts and Stingerette transport are given as protective resources.
  14. present: The notice tells readers how to move safely and when to call police.
  15. present: Immediately report suspicious activity is explicit protective guidance.
  16. present: Guidance extends beyond investigation status into personal safety practices.
  17. present: Well-lit walking and group travel are classic protective actions.
  18. present: Recipients receive a multi-point safety checklist after the attempt report.
  19. present: Call GTPD at 404-894-2500 is actionable instruction.
  20. present: The Clery flyer supplies safety practices the community should follow.
  21. present: Protective guidance spans reporting, lighting, companions, and transport.
  22. present: Say something and notify GTPD immediately is a direct directive.
  23. present: Additional Safety Information section carries the guidance element.
  24. present: Instructional content includes LiveSafe, Stingerette, and well-lit routes.
  25. present: Guidance present through See Something messaging and detailed safety tips.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous present: Incident Date/Time states November 21, 2025, at approximately 4:30 AM.

  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: Incident Date/Time states November 21, 2025, at approximately 4:30 AM.
  2. present: A calendar date and clock time of about 4:30 AM are given.
  3. present: Time present via November 21, 2025 and approximately 4:30 AM.
  4. present: The flyer timestamps the attempted robbery to a specific early-morning hour.
  5. present: When: November 21, 2025, at approximately 4:30 AM is explicit.
  6. present: Both date and approximate clock time appear under Incident Date/Time.
  7. present: Readers know the attempt occurred early on November 21, 2025.
  8. present: Temporal content includes the date November 21, 2025 and 4:30 AM.
  9. present: Approximately 4:30 AM is a minute-level clock cue for the event.
  10. present: Time element met by dated Incident Date/Time field.
  11. present: The alert answers when with November 21, 2025 at about 4:30 AM.
  12. present: Clock time 4:30 AM plus calendar date satisfy the time element.
  13. present: Occurrence timing is written as November 21, 2025, approximately 4:30 AM.
  14. present: A clear date-time stamp for the attempted robbery is present.
  15. present: Incident Date/Time line provides full temporal reference.
  16. present: The message states when the attempted robbery took place.
  17. present: November 21, 2025 and 4:30 AM together are strong time cues.
  18. present: Time is present: dated early-morning timestamp for the street attempt.
  19. present: No ambiguity that a specific date and clock hour are given.
  20. present: The flyer reports the incident time as approximately 4:30 AM on November 21.
  21. present: Temporal markers include month, day, year, and early-morning clock time.
  22. present: When language is the Incident Date/Time block with 4:30 AM.
  23. present: Date November 21, 2025 with 4:30 AM fully supports time present.
  24. present: The alert includes both calendar and clock timing for the crime.
  25. present: Time scores present on the explicit November 21, 2025, 4:30 AM stamp.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Unanimous absent: nothing taken and no injuries are non-harm outcomes; attempted robbery naming alone fails 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: Nothing was taken and no injuries reported state non-harm outcomes, not severity impact.
  2. absent: Attempted robbery is the hazard name; no life-threatening impact phrasing.
  3. absent: Impact absent: pocket search described without injury or severity consequence language.
  4. absent: No language such as life-threatening, dangerous, or could be deadly appears.
  5. absent: The text reports no injuries and nothing taken rather than potential harm language.
  6. absent: Strict reading: hazard labels plus no injuries do not satisfy impact.
  7. absent: Impact fails because consequence or severity beyond the crime type is not conveyed.
  8. absent: Failed theft without injury is not population-level impact severity wording.
  9. absent: Nothing states potential for serious injury beyond the attempted robbery label.
  10. absent: I remains zero without explicit harm potential or severity framing.
  11. absent: The flyer focuses on description and tips, not impact severity for people.
  12. absent: No injuries is outcome status, not impact severity language for the community.
  13. absent: No may cause injury or risk of death clause is written.
  14. absent: Impact element requires consequence wording; this alert stops at hazard and non-injury.
  15. absent: Readers learn what happened, not a separate statement of potential consequences.
  16. absent: Pocket grabbing is part of the attempted robbery hazard, not impact language.
  17. absent: No casualties, no health risk clause, no severity adjective for community risk.
  18. absent: The message does not say the event was life-threatening.
  19. absent: Impact absent under rubric that hazard names alone do not count.
  20. absent: Attempt outcome without injury severity wording leaves I at zero.
  21. absent: Nothing quantifies harm potential beyond the fact of an attempted robbery.
  22. absent: Severity framing for people is missing outside the crime type name.
  23. absent: The alert identifies the attempt without adding impact or severity detail.
  24. absent: I is zero: no explicit consequence language beyond nothing taken and no injuries.
  25. absent: Failed property crime with no injuries does not meet the impact element.