Campus Secure on Lehigh campus area

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

  Present: Source in HawkWatch CAP.

  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: HawkWatch or Lehigh branding identifies the sender Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Source present via emergency notification system Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Campus safety branding names the sender Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Issuing system is HawkWatch From the full message only.
  5. present: Source cue is campus alert branding No outside context used.
  6. present: Police or facilities alert branding appears Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Sender identity is clear Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Agency attribution is present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: HawkWatch or Lehigh branding identifies the sender Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source present via emergency notification system Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Campus safety branding names the sender Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Issuing system is HawkWatch Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Source cue is campus alert branding Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Police or facilities alert branding appears Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Sender identity is clear Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Agency attribution is present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: HawkWatch or Lehigh branding identifies the sender Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Source present via emergency notification system Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Campus safety branding names the sender Message length noted.
  20. present: Issuing system is HawkWatch Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Source cue is campus alert branding Element call is firm.
  22. present: Police or facilities alert branding appears Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Sender identity is clear No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Agency attribution is present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: HawkWatch or Lehigh branding identifies the sender Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Hazard in HawkWatch CAP.

  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 a specific hazard or condition Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Hazard is concrete Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Hazard type is explicit From the full message only.
  5. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording No outside context used.
  6. present: The notice states what occurred Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Named condition appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Concrete hazard is identified Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Names a specific hazard or condition Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Hazard is concrete Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Hazard type is explicit Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: The notice states what occurred Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Named condition appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Concrete hazard is identified One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Names a specific hazard or condition Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Hazard is concrete Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Specific threat vocabulary is present Message length noted.
  20. present: Hazard type is explicit Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Hazard present beyond vague wording Element call is firm.
  22. present: The notice states what occurred Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Named condition appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Concrete hazard is identified Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Names a specific hazard or condition Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Location in HawkWatch CAP.

  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: A building or campus place is stated Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Location cues appear Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Geographic detail is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Named place information is included From the full message only.
  5. present: Location element is satisfied No outside context used.
  6. present: Where-information is present Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Campus geography is referenced Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Place names appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: A building or campus place is stated Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Location cues appear Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Geographic detail is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Named place information is included Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Location element is satisfied Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Where-information is present Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Campus geography is referenced Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Place names appear One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: A building or campus place is stated Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Location cues appear Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Geographic detail is present Message length noted.
  20. present: Named place information is included Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Location element is satisfied Element call is firm.
  22. present: Where-information is present Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Campus geography is referenced No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Place names appear Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: A building or campus place is stated Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: Guidance in HawkWatch CAP.

  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: Provides protective or status instructions Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Action language appears Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Actionable advice is present From the full message only.
  5. present: Protective guidance is included No outside context used.
  6. present: Readers are told how to respond Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Safety action wording appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Instructions are present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Provides protective or status instructions Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Action language appears Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Actionable advice is present Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Protective guidance is included Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Readers are told how to respond Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Safety action wording appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Instructions are present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Provides protective or status instructions Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Action language appears Message length noted.
  20. present: Actionable advice is present Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Protective guidance is included Element call is firm.
  22. present: Readers are told how to respond Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Safety action wording appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Instructions are present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Provides protective or status instructions Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent: Time in HawkWatch CAP.

  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. absent: No time cue is present Independent review agrees.
  2. absent: No time cue is present Confirmed on re-read.
  3. absent: No time cue is present Based solely on the alert text.
  4. absent: No time cue is present From the full message only.
  5. absent: No time cue is present No outside context used.
  6. absent: No time cue is present Strict rubric application.
  7. absent: No time cue is present Element coded from wording alone.
  8. absent: No time cue is present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. absent: No time cue is present Matches the public-warning test.
  10. absent: No time cue is present Wording is decisive here.
  11. absent: No time cue is present Clear cut for this element.
  12. absent: No time cue is present Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. absent: No time cue is present Standard pattern for this element.
  14. absent: No time cue is present Consistent with prior passes.
  15. absent: No time cue is present Decision rests on cue words.
  16. absent: No time cue is present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. absent: No time cue is present Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. absent: No time cue is present Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. absent: No time cue is present Message length noted.
  20. absent: No time cue is present Coding stable across rereads.
  21. absent: No time cue is present Element call is firm.
  22. absent: No time cue is present Text support is adequate.
  23. absent: No time cue is present No contradictory cue found.
  24. absent: No time cue is present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. absent: No time cue is present Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent: Impact in HawkWatch CAP.

  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 impact language is stated Independent review agrees.
  2. absent: No impact language is stated Confirmed on re-read.
  3. absent: No impact language is stated Based solely on the alert text.
  4. absent: No impact language is stated From the full message only.
  5. absent: No impact language is stated No outside context used.
  6. absent: No impact language is stated Strict rubric application.
  7. absent: No impact language is stated Element coded from wording alone.
  8. absent: No impact language is stated Same conclusion on second look.
  9. absent: No impact language is stated Matches the public-warning test.
  10. absent: No impact language is stated Wording is decisive here.
  11. absent: No impact language is stated Clear cut for this element.
  12. absent: No impact language is stated Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. absent: No impact language is stated Standard pattern for this element.
  14. absent: No impact language is stated Consistent with prior passes.
  15. absent: No impact language is stated Decision rests on cue words.
  16. absent: No impact language is stated One-sentence justification holds.
  17. absent: No impact language is stated Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. absent: No impact language is stated Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. absent: No impact language is stated Message length noted.
  20. absent: No impact language is stated Coding stable across rereads.
  21. absent: No impact language is stated Element call is firm.
  22. absent: No impact language is stated Text support is adequate.
  23. absent: No impact language is stated No contradictory cue found.
  24. absent: No impact language is stated Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. absent: No impact language is stated Synthesis-ready vote recorded.