Lingering ice delays opening to 10 am

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

  Majority 25/25 present. Institutional branding appears via "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…", which marks the sender.

  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: Institutional branding appears via "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…", which marks the sender.
  2. present: The notice identifies who is speaking through "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  3. present: Source is present because "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" names the issuing campus or alert brand.
  4. present: A campus or alert signature ("Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…") supplies the authority line.
  5. present: Sender identity is clear from the wording "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  6. present: The alert tags an official issuer with "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  7. present: Who is sending this is stated through "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  8. present: Branded language "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" functions as the source element.
  9. present: Campus naming in "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" tells recipients the origin of the message.
  10. present: An official voice is established by "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  11. present: The opening or body includes "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" as institutional source.
  12. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is enough to code source present under the branding rule.
  13. present: Recipients can tell the sender from "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  14. present: Source scores present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is an authority marker.
  15. present: The university or college is referenced as "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  16. present: Alert-system or school labeling ("Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…") covers source.
  17. present: Issuing body is identifiable from "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  18. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" operates as a branded signature for source.
  19. present: The text attributes the message via "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  20. present: Source present: campus authority language "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  21. present: Readers see "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" and know which campus is speaking.
  22. present: Official sender cue "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is explicit in the text.
  23. present: Source is coded yes based on "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  24. present: The phrase "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" identifies the responding institution.
  25. present: Authority is named through the fragment "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Hazard is specific: the text names "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".

  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 specific: the text names "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  2. present: A concrete threat appears as "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  3. present: The what of the emergency is "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…", not a vague incident label.
  4. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" satisfies hazard by naming the condition or threat.
  5. present: Readers learn the hazard type from "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  6. present: Hazard present via the explicit phrase "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  7. present: The threat is particularized as "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  8. present: Coding H=1 because "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is a named hazard.
  9. present: Specific danger language: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  10. present: The alert states the problem as "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  11. present: Hazard element met by "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  12. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is more than a generic emergency word.
  13. present: Threat identity is clear from "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  14. present: The message pins the hazard to "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  15. present: Named condition "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" counts as hazard.
  16. present: H is present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" tells what is wrong.
  17. present: Concrete hazard wording includes "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  18. present: The incident type is given as "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  19. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is the stated threat or weather/system hazard.
  20. present: Hazard codes yes on "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  21. present: Specifics beat generics here: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  22. present: The text's hazard signal is "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  23. present: What happened is labeled "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  24. present: Hazard present with the phrase "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  25. present: Threat naming succeeds through "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Location is given through "on campus".

  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 given through "on campus".
  2. present: Place is specified as "on campus".
  3. present: Where is answered by "on campus".
  4. present: "on campus" functions as the location element.
  5. present: The alert situates the event with "on campus".
  6. present: Geographic or campus place: "on campus".
  7. present: L=1 because "on campus" names where this applies.
  8. present: Recipients are told the place via "on campus".
  9. present: Location present in the phrase "on campus".
  10. present: A campus or building reference "on campus" covers location.
  11. present: The where cue is "on campus".
  12. present: "on campus" identifies the affected area.
  13. present: Place naming succeeds with "on campus".
  14. present: Location codes yes on "on campus".
  15. present: Site detail appears as "on campus".
  16. present: The message anchors place with "on campus".
  17. present: "on campus" is enough location under the rubric.
  18. present: Affected place language: "on campus".
  19. present: L is present via "on campus".
  20. present: Campus geography is marked by "on campus".
  21. present: Where this matters is "on campus".
  22. present: The text localizes to "on campus".
  23. present: Location element met by "on campus".
  24. present: Place is not left blank: "on campus".
  25. present: Spatial reference "on campus" supports L=1.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No protective action or operational instruction is given 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. absent: No protective action or operational instruction is given to recipients.
  2. absent: Guidance is absent: the text does not tell people what to do.
  3. absent: There is no shelter, avoid, evacuate, remote, or similar directive.
  4. absent: G=0 because audience-facing instructions are missing.
  5. absent: The message reports status without directing action.
  6. absent: No what-to-do language appears.
  7. absent: Guidance fails: pure information without orders.
  8. absent: Recipients are not told a protective step.
  9. absent: Instructional content is not present.
  10. absent: The alert omits guidance to the public.
  11. absent: Without a directive, G is zero.
  12. absent: No action line is addressed to readers.
  13. absent: Guidance element codes absent.
  14. absent: What-to-do is left unstated.
  15. absent: The text does not instruct avoidance, shelter, or closure behavior.
  16. absent: Audience guidance is missing from the body.
  17. absent: G fails the protective-action test.
  18. absent: No operational instruction is issued.
  19. absent: Readers get facts but not orders.
  20. absent: Guidance not established here.
  21. absent: Directive language is absent.
  22. absent: The message never tells recipients how to act.
  23. absent: No shelter/evacuate/remote/close instruction appears.
  24. absent: G is absent on non-directive wording.
  25. absent: Protective guidance cannot be coded present.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Time is marked by "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".

  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 is marked by "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  2. present: A temporal cue appears as "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  3. present: When is answered with "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  4. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" supplies timing or recency.
  5. present: T=1 because "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is a time reference.
  6. present: Clock or calendar language: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  7. present: The alert times the event with "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  8. present: Temporal detail "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is present.
  9. present: Time element met by "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  10. present: Recipients see timing via "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  11. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" counts as the time cue.
  12. present: When-language includes "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  13. present: T codes yes on "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  14. present: A schedule or day marker "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" appears.
  15. present: Timing is explicit: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  16. present: The text anchors time with "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  17. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is enough for the time element.
  18. present: Recency or clock cue "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" is stated.
  19. present: T is present via "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  20. present: Date or hour language "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" supports T=1.
  21. present: Temporal reference: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  22. present: The when signal is "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  23. present: Time present through "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…".
  24. present: "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" tells recipients the relevant when.
  25. present: Schedule wording "Due to lingering ice on campus from thi…" meets time.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No consequence or severity language appears beyond naming a hazard.

  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: No consequence or severity language appears beyond naming a hazard.
  2. absent: Impact is absent: the text does not say what the threat could do.
  3. absent: Nothing states danger level, injuries, or disruptive effect.
  4. absent: I=0 because severity or harm is not conveyed.
  5. absent: Hazard may be named, but impact language is missing.
  6. absent: The alert omits consequence wording.
  7. absent: Impact fails the harm-or-severity test.
  8. absent: Readers are not told stakes or effects.
  9. absent: No life-safety or operational impact phrase is present.
  10. absent: Impact element codes absent.
  11. absent: Without consequence language, I is zero.
  12. absent: Severity is left unstated.
  13. absent: The text stops short of impact.
  14. absent: Harm potential is not described.
  15. absent: I fails on bare description without effects.
  16. absent: No dangerous/closed/injury-style impact cue appears.
  17. absent: Impact not established by the wording.
  18. absent: Consequence detail is missing.
  19. absent: The message lacks severity framing.
  20. absent: I is absent under the impact rule.
  21. absent: Stakes for people or property are not stated.
  22. absent: No disruption or harm language is included.
  23. absent: Impact cannot be coded present here.
  24. absent: Effect-on-campus language is omitted.
  25. absent: Severity/consequence element fails.