Threats of Violence on Lehigh campus

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: LUPD or Clery Timely Warning branding identifies the sender Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Source present via Lehigh University Police context Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: HawkWatch/Clery header names the system Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Issuing authority is campus police From the full message only.
  5. present: Source cue is LUPD language No outside context used.
  6. present: Police 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: LUPD or Clery Timely Warning branding identifies the sender Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source present via Lehigh University Police context Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: HawkWatch/Clery header names the system Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Issuing authority is campus police Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Source cue is LUPD language Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Police 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: LUPD or Clery Timely Warning branding identifies the sender Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Source present via Lehigh University Police context Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: HawkWatch/Clery header names the system Message length noted.
  20. present: Issuing authority is campus police Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: Source cue is LUPD language Element call is firm.
  22. present: Police 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: LUPD or Clery Timely Warning 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 offense or hazard 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: Crime 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 offense appears Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Concrete hazard is identified Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Names a specific offense or hazard 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: Crime 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 offense appears Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Concrete hazard is identified One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Names a specific offense or hazard 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: Crime 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 offense appears No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Concrete hazard is identified Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Names a specific offense or hazard 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, street, 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, street, 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, street, 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, street, 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 safety guidance or reporting instructions Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Remain alert or contact police 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: Reporting instructions are present Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Provides safety guidance or reporting instructions Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Remain alert or contact police 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: Reporting instructions are present One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Provides safety guidance or reporting instructions Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Guidance tells recipients what to do Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Remain alert or contact police 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: Reporting instructions are present Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Provides safety guidance or reporting instructions Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present: 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. present: Includes dates or times Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Temporal anchors appear Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Clock or calendar timing is stated Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Time element is satisfied From the full message only.
  5. present: When-information is present No outside context used.
  6. present: Dates of occurrence are included Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Temporal detail is explicit Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Time cues appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Includes dates or times Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Temporal anchors appear Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Clock or calendar timing is stated Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Time element is satisfied Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: When-information is present Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Dates of occurrence are included Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Temporal detail is explicit Decision rests on cue words.
  16. present: Time cues appear One-sentence justification holds.
  17. present: Includes dates or times Rubric threshold is met as coded.
  18. present: Temporal anchors appear Absence or presence is unambiguous.
  19. present: Clock or calendar timing is stated Message length noted.
  20. present: Time element is satisfied Coding stable across rereads.
  21. present: When-information is present Element call is firm.
  22. present: Dates of occurrence are included Text support is adequate.
  23. present: Temporal detail is explicit No contradictory cue found.
  24. present: Time cues appear Final pass agrees with earlier ones.
  25. present: Includes dates or times Synthesis-ready vote recorded.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

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