Overnight refreeze forces full-day campus close

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.

• Sourceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No campus brand, agency name, or alert signature appears in the text.

  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. absent: No campus brand, agency name, or alert signature appears in the text.
  2. absent: The wording never says who is sending the notice.
  3. absent: Source is absent: no university, police, or alert-system label is stated.
  4. absent: Nothing identifies an issuing authority or branded channel.
  5. absent: No sender tag or institutional self-naming is present.
  6. absent: Recipients cannot tell the source from the body alone.
  7. absent: Source codes zero because authority language is missing.
  8. absent: There is no ALERT brand or school name to credit as source.
  9. absent: The message jumps to content without naming who issued it.
  10. absent: No public-safety or campus office is identified as sender.
  11. absent: Source fails: blank on branded signature and agency.
  12. absent: Issuing body is not stated in any form.
  13. absent: Without a signature or school name, source is absent.
  14. absent: The text omits sender identification entirely.
  15. absent: No authority cue meets the source element rule.
  16. absent: Source not present under the branding or agency tests.
  17. absent: Who authored the alert is left unspecified.
  18. absent: There is no institutional label to treat as source.
  19. absent: Sender identity cannot be read from the message.
  20. absent: Source scores absent on this wording.
  21. absent: No alert header or campus self-reference is included.
  22. absent: The body never attributes the notice to an issuer.
  23. absent: Authority line is missing from start to end.
  24. absent: Source element fails for lack of named sender.
  25. absent: Nothing in the text names a sending organization.
• Hazardabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. Only generic words like emergency or incident appear, with no specific threat named.

  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. absent: Only generic words like emergency or incident appear, with no specific threat named.
  2. absent: Hazard is absent: the text never names a concrete danger type.
  3. absent: No weather, violence, fire, outage, or other specific hazard is stated.
  4. absent: The message does not say what the threat is.
  5. absent: H=0 because specificity of hazard is missing.
  6. absent: Nothing identifies a particular hazard beyond vague wording.
  7. absent: A specific threat noun is not present.
  8. absent: Hazard fails the named-threat test.
  9. absent: Readers cannot tell what danger is being reported.
  10. absent: No concrete hazard language appears in the body.
  11. absent: The alert omits the what of the emergency.
  12. absent: Generic status language does not satisfy hazard.
  13. absent: Threat type is left unspecified.
  14. absent: Hazard element codes absent on this text.
  15. absent: Without a named hazard, H is zero.
  16. absent: The wording never specifies the danger.
  17. absent: No shots, storm, fire, leak, or similar is stated.
  18. absent: Hazard is too vague to count as present.
  19. absent: Specific threat naming is missing entirely.
  20. absent: H fails: no particular hazard term.
  21. absent: The message skips naming what is wrong.
  22. absent: Only non-specific incident language is used.
  23. absent: Hazard not established by the text.
  24. absent: A concrete hazard label is not found.
  25. absent: Named-threat requirement is not met.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 absent. No building, campus, street, or area is named.

  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. absent: No building, campus, street, or area is named.
  2. absent: Location is absent: the text never says where.
  3. absent: There is no place cue for recipients to orient to.
  4. absent: L=0 because spatial reference is missing.
  5. absent: The alert omits campus or site detail.
  6. absent: Where this applies is never stated.
  7. absent: No location language appears in the body.
  8. absent: Place naming fails on this wording.
  9. absent: Readers get no geographic anchor.
  10. absent: Location element is not satisfied.
  11. absent: Without a place name, L is zero.
  12. absent: The message leaves location unspecified.
  13. absent: No hall, campus, or area reference is present.
  14. absent: Spatial information is missing entirely.
  15. absent: L fails the place-naming test.
  16. absent: Affected site is not identified.
  17. absent: Location codes absent here.
  18. absent: The text is silent on where.
  19. absent: No campus geography is given.
  20. absent: Place element cannot be coded present.
  21. absent: Where-cue is blank in this alert.
  22. absent: Location not established by the wording.
  23. absent: Site detail is omitted.
  24. absent: No area or building reference exists.
  25. absent: L is absent on a pure no-place text.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Guidance is the instruction "closed".

  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: Guidance is the instruction "closed".
  2. present: Protective action appears as "closed".
  3. present: Recipients are told to act via "closed".
  4. present: "closed" is a direct what-to-do line.
  5. present: G=1 because "closed" instructs the audience.
  6. present: The alert directs action with "closed".
  7. present: Guidance present: "closed".
  8. present: A clear instruction is "closed".
  9. present: What to do is stated as "closed".
  10. present: "closed" counts as protective guidance.
  11. present: Action language "closed" meets guidance.
  12. present: The message tells people "closed".
  13. present: Guidance codes yes on "closed".
  14. present: Operational direction: "closed".
  15. present: Instructional content includes "closed".
  16. present: "closed" is audience-facing guidance.
  17. present: G is present via the cue "closed".
  18. present: Protective or operational order "closed" is explicit.
  19. present: The text's guidance signal is "closed".
  20. present: Recipients receive the directive "closed".
  21. present: What-to-do element satisfied by "closed".
  22. present: "closed" tells the public how to respond or operate.
  23. present: Guidance met through "closed".
  24. present: Action instruction present: "closed".
  25. present: The alert's order to the audience is "closed".
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Time is marked by "Friday".

  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 "Friday".
  2. present: A temporal cue appears as "Friday".
  3. present: When is answered with "Friday".
  4. present: "Friday" supplies timing or recency.
  5. present: T=1 because "Friday" is a time reference.
  6. present: Clock or calendar language: "Friday".
  7. present: The alert times the event with "Friday".
  8. present: Temporal detail "Friday" is present.
  9. present: Time element met by "Friday".
  10. present: Recipients see timing via "Friday".
  11. present: "Friday" counts as the time cue.
  12. present: When-language includes "Friday".
  13. present: T codes yes on "Friday".
  14. present: A schedule or day marker "Friday" appears.
  15. present: Timing is explicit: "Friday".
  16. present: The text anchors time with "Friday".
  17. present: "Friday" is enough for the time element.
  18. present: Recency or clock cue "Friday" is stated.
  19. present: T is present via "Friday".
  20. present: Date or hour language "Friday" supports T=1.
  21. present: Temporal reference: "Friday".
  22. present: The when signal is "Friday".
  23. present: Time present through "Friday".
  24. present: "Friday" tells recipients the relevant when.
  25. present: Schedule wording "Friday" meets time.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Majority 25/25 present. Impact is conveyed by "unsafe".

  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: Impact is conveyed by "unsafe".
  2. present: Consequence language appears as "unsafe".
  3. present: Severity or harm is signaled by "unsafe".
  4. present: "unsafe" states what the hazard does to people or operations.
  5. present: I=1 because "unsafe" implies real-world impact.
  6. present: The alert spells impact through "unsafe".
  7. present: Impact present: "unsafe".
  8. present: Operational or safety consequence "unsafe" is explicit.
  9. present: What could happen is framed as "unsafe".
  10. present: "unsafe" counts as impact beyond bare hazard naming.
  11. present: Impact element met by "unsafe".
  12. present: Severity cue "unsafe" supports I=1.
  13. present: I codes yes on "unsafe".
  14. present: The text links hazard to effect via "unsafe".
  15. present: Consequence wording: "unsafe".
  16. present: "unsafe" shows stakes for the campus community.
  17. present: Impact is not left implicit only: "unsafe".
  18. present: Harm or closure effect appears as "unsafe".
  19. present: I is present via "unsafe".
  20. present: The message states impact with "unsafe".
  21. present: Real-world effect language "unsafe" is included.
  22. present: Impact signal: "unsafe".
  23. present: "unsafe" communicates severity or disruption.
  24. present: Consequence is clear from "unsafe".
  25. present: Impact present through the phrase "unsafe".