Burglary reported in a campus crime or safety notice; near an upper floor in Building

To check this alert, Claude Opus 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

  Present, 25 of 25. It is signed "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department" with contact details, identifying the issuing office.

  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: Sue Fuller DeAmato, Crime Analyst with the MIT Police Department, signs the message.
  2. present: The closing identifies Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department.
  3. present: Signed by "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department" with contact details.
  4. present: Sue Fuller-DeAmato of the MIT Police Department is named with email and phone.
  5. present: The signature block gives Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department.
  6. present: Issued by a Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, which is also investigating.
  7. present: The signature identifies the MIT Police Department crime analyst as the issuer.
  8. present: Signed by "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department".
  9. present: Signed by Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, with email.
  10. present: The MIT Police are named as investigators and Sue Fuller-DeAmato issues it with her contact details.
  11. present: The MIT Police Department is named throughout and the Crime Analyst's contact block signs it.
  12. present: Signed by Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst with the MIT Police Department.
  13. present: Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, is listed as issuing it.
  14. present: Crime Analyst Sue Fuller-DeAmato of the MIT Police Department issues it.
  15. present: The signature line for the Crime Analyst at MIT Police Department identifies the sender.
  16. present: Issued by "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department" with contact details.
  17. present: Issued by "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department", naming the source.
  18. present: The signature block names the Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department.
  19. present: Signed by MIT Police Crime Analyst Sue Fuller-DeAmato with department contact details.
  20. present: Signed "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department" with contact details.
  21. present: Signed by "Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department" with contact details.
  22. present: Signed by a Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department with direct contact details.
  23. present: The signature block gives Sue Fuller DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department.
  24. present: Signed by the "Crime Analyst | MIT Police Department", with email and phone.
  25. present: Signed by Sue Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, with contact details.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25, unanimous. "Multiple offices ... were burglarized", with "a number of offices along the hallway" having "their glass doors broken" and laptops and keys stolen.

  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: Multiple offices "were burglarized" and glass doors were broken, a clearly named crime.
  2. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  3. present: "Multiple offices ... were burglarized", with glass doors broken and laptops stolen.
  4. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" and glass doors were found broken.
  5. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  6. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken, a specific property crime.
  7. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized", with glass doors broken along the hallway.
  8. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with "glass doors broken", clearly naming the crime.
  9. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" and their glass doors were found broken.
  10. present: A multi office burglary with glass doors broken is the specific threat named.
  11. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  12. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken along the hallway.
  13. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken, a clearly specified crime.
  14. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  15. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken, naming the crime.
  16. present: It states multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken.
  17. present: "Multiple offices ... were burglarized" with broken glass doors and stolen laptops and keys.
  18. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken, a specific crime.
  19. present: It reports that multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken.
  20. present: "Multiple offices ... were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  21. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  22. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors smashed, a clear crime.
  23. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken and laptops and keys stolen.
  24. present: It states multiple offices "were burglarized" with glass doors broken.
  25. present: Multiple offices "were burglarized" and glass doors were broken, a clearly named crime.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The offices sit on "an upper floor in Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".

  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: It specifies "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".
  2. present: It states "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  3. present: The place is "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor.
  4. present: The site is an upper floor of Building E25, "located at 45 Carleton Street".
  5. present: It specifies "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  6. present: Location given as "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor.
  7. present: The location is "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor.
  8. present: The offices are in "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".
  9. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  10. present: Building E25 at 45 Carleton Street, upper floor, is identified.
  11. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  12. present: It names Building E25 at "45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  13. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  14. present: It cites "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".
  15. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".
  16. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  17. present: The place is "an upper floor in Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".
  18. present: It gives "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor.
  19. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  20. present: Location given as "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor.
  21. present: The location is "an upper floor in Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street."
  22. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor.
  23. present: It specifies "an upper floor in Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street".
  24. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
  25. present: It names "Building E25, which is located at 45 Carleton Street", upper floor offices.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Instructions include "Always lock your doors and windows", "Do not prop doors open", reporting tailgaters, and documenting serial numbers of electronics.

  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: The tips direct readers to lock doors and windows and to report suspicious activity.
  2. present: Readers are told to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors, and report suspicious activity.
  3. present: It advises locking doors and windows, not propping doors, and reporting suspicious activity.
  4. present: Readers are told to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and report suspicious activity.
  5. present: It advises locking doors and windows, not propping doors, and reporting suspicious activity.
  6. present: Readers are urged to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and report suspicious activity.
  7. present: Recipients are told to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and report suspicious activity.
  8. present: It advises locking doors and windows, not propping doors, and reporting suspicious activity to MIT Police.
  9. present: Readers are directed to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors and register laptops.
  10. present: Tips direct readers to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and call MIT Police immediately.
  11. present: Readers are told to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors, and report tailgaters.
  12. present: It advises locking doors and windows, not propping doors, and reporting suspicious activity.
  13. present: Tips direct readers to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors, and report suspicious activity.
  14. present: It instructs readers to lock doors, avoid propping them, and report suspicious activity.
  15. present: It tells readers to lock doors, avoid propping them, and report suspicious people.
  16. present: Readers are told to lock doors, avoid propping them, and report suspicious activity to police.
  17. present: Tips instruct readers to lock doors, avoid propping them, and report suspicious activity.
  18. present: Readers are told to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and report suspicious activity.
  19. present: It instructs readers to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors, and report tailgaters.
  20. present: It tells readers to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors, and report suspicious activity.
  21. present: Tips tell readers to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and report suspicious activity.
  22. present: Readers are urged to lock doors and windows and to report suspicious activity.
  23. present: Recipients are told to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors and report tailgaters.
  24. present: It urges locking doors and windows, not propping doors, and reporting suspicious activity.
  25. present: It tells readers to lock doors, not prop them, document valuables and call MIT Police immediately.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The break-ins are placed "sometime between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM", with discovery the morning of Thursday May 17, 2018.

  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: The window runs "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  2. present: The window runs "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM."
  3. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  4. present: The window is "May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM" on the morning of Thursday May 17, 2018.
  5. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  6. present: The window runs "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  7. present: The interval given is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  8. present: The window given is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  9. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  10. present: The window given is May 16 at 11:00PM to May 17 at 7:00AM.
  11. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  12. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  13. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM", with a Thursday May 17 discovery.
  14. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  15. present: The window "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM" is explicit.
  16. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  17. present: The window runs "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  18. present: It brackets "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  19. present: The window is "May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  20. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  21. present: The interval "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM" is stated precisely.
  22. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  23. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  24. present: The window runs "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
  25. present: The window is "between May 16 at 11:00PM and May 17 at 7:00AM".
• Impactpresent16/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 16 of 25. The majority counts both damage and loss, "glass doors broken" and "laptops and keys" stolen; nine reads answer that these are recited as facts with no severity or danger language.

  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: Damage and loss are both described: broken glass doors and "laptops and keys" reported stolen.
  2. absent: Broken doors and stolen laptops are reported as facts without any severity or danger language.
  3. absent: Broken doors are described as fact, not as an expression of danger or severity.
  4. present: Damage and loss are both described: "glass doors broken" and "laptops and keys" stolen.
  5. absent: Broken doors and stolen items are recounted without any statement of danger or gravity.
  6. present: Damage and loss are both described: broken glass doors plus "laptops and keys" stolen.
  7. present: Damage and loss are both stated: broken glass doors and "laptops and keys" reported stolen.
  8. present: Broken glass doors plus "laptops and keys" reported stolen show the damage and loss caused.
  9. present: Damage and loss are stated: broken glass doors and "several items, including laptops and keys" stolen.
  10. present: Broken glass doors plus stolen laptops and keys show both property damage and loss.
  11. absent: Broken doors are described as fact, with no statement of risk to people or severity.
  12. present: Damage and loss are both stated: broken glass doors and stolen laptops and keys.
  13. present: Broken glass doors plus "several items, including laptops and keys, have been reported stolen" show the damage.
  14. absent: Property damage is described as fact, but no severity or threat statement is made.
  15. present: Broken glass doors and stolen "laptops and keys" convey both property damage and loss.
  16. present: It describes damage and loss: broken glass doors and "several items, including laptops and keys" stolen.
  17. absent: Property damage is described factually without any stated danger or severity to people.
  18. present: Damage and loss are described: "glass doors broken" and "laptops and keys ... reported stolen".
  19. present: Damage and loss are stated: broken glass doors and stolen "laptops and keys".
  20. absent: Broken doors and theft are reported, but no danger or severity claim is made.
  21. absent: Broken doors and stolen laptops are reported, but no severity or danger to people is described.
  22. present: Doors were found broken and "laptops and keys, have been reported stolen", real damage and loss.
  23. absent: Broken doors are mentioned as facts, with no explicit severity or risk to people stated.
  24. present: Doors along the hallway had "their glass doors broken" and laptops and keys were stolen.
  25. present: Damage and loss are both stated: broken glass doors and stolen "laptops and keys".