Burglary at Nu Delta Fraternity

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. The notice closes "Issued by Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department," and the advice is attributed to "MIT Police."

  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: The closing block credits a Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, so the authority is clear.
  2. present: Ends with the issuer line for Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department.
  3. present: Ends "Issued by Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department", identifying the sender.
  4. present: Signed by a Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, an identified issuing authority.
  5. present: "Issued by Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department" identifies the issuing office.
  6. present: Issued by a named "Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department", and the body repeatedly attributes advice to MIT Police.
  7. present: Issued by a named MIT Police Department crime analyst, so the sending authority is explicit.
  8. present: Ends with "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department", an identified sender.
  9. present: The message is signed by a Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department and cites MIT Police guidance.
  10. present: Signed by a Crime Analyst of the "MIT Police Department", which identifies the issuing authority.
  11. present: Issued by a named MIT Police Department crime analyst, Susan Fuller-DeAmato.
  12. present: Issued by a named MIT Police Department crime analyst, so the sending authority is explicit.
  13. present: The notice ends with "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department" as the issuing office.
  14. present: It ends with "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department", a clear issuing office.
  15. present: Ends with "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department", a clear sender attribution.
  16. present: It is signed by a named Crime Analyst of the "MIT Police Department", identifying the issuer.
  17. present: Attributed to the MIT Police Department and signed by crime analyst Susan Fuller-DeAmato.
  18. present: Signed by a Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department, so the issuing body is clear.
  19. present: The closing block names "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department" as issuer.
  20. present: Issued by a named MIT Police crime analyst, Susan Fuller-DeAmato, identifying the sender clearly.
  21. present: Authorship is stated as Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst of the MIT Police Department.
  22. present: "MIT Police Department" and crime analyst Susan Fuller-DeAmato are named as the issuing office.
  23. present: Ends with "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department" as the issuing office.
  24. present: The notice is issued by "Susan Fuller-DeAmato, Crime Analyst, MIT Police Department".
  25. present: MIT Police and a named crime analyst sign the notice, identifying the issuing agency.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Nu Delta "was burglarized" by a man who claimed he was "a contractor there to fix the wall," after which "a smart TV and laptop were missing."

  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: A fraternity "was burglarized" by an intruder posing as a contractor, a specifically named crime.
  2. present: Says the fraternity "was burglarized" with a smart TV and laptop missing, a specific offense.
  3. present: Says the fraternity "was burglarized" by a man who took a smart TV and laptop.
  4. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a named crime.
  5. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a named criminal threat.
  6. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, which is a specific crime.
  7. present: Says the fraternity "was burglarized" and a suspect took a smart TV and laptop.
  8. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a specific offense.
  9. present: It reports that the fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a named crime.
  10. present: The text says the fraternity "was burglarized" and a TV and laptop went missing, a named crime.
  11. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a named crime.
  12. present: It states the fraternity "was burglarized" and a TV and laptop went missing, a concrete crime.
  13. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, naming the threat precisely.
  14. present: A burglary is named: the fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing.
  15. present: Says the fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a concrete hazard.
  16. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a TV and laptop went missing, a specifically named threat.
  17. present: It states the fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing.
  18. present: The text says the fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing.
  19. present: It states the fraternity "was burglarized" and describes an intruder who took a TV and laptop.
  20. present: The alert reports that the fraternity "was burglarized" and that a smart TV and laptop went missing.
  21. present: The message reports a fraternity "burglarized" by a male suspect who took a smart TV and laptop.
  22. present: The threat is a burglary in which "a smart TV and laptop were missing from the residence".
  23. present: Says the fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing.
  24. present: A fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a specific offense.
  25. present: The fraternity "was burglarized" and a smart TV and laptop went missing, a named crime.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The alert names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston," a street address off the main 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: It pinpoints "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  2. present: Locates it at "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  3. present: Names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  4. present: It specifies "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston."
  5. present: The scene is given as "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston."
  6. present: It names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston" as the site.
  7. present: Names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  8. present: Locates it at "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  9. present: The scene is "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  10. present: It names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  11. present: It specifies "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  12. present: The place given is "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  13. present: It specifies "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  14. present: Location is "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  15. present: Locates it at "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  16. present: It states the address, "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  17. present: The place is given as "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  18. present: It names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  19. present: The place is "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  20. present: It gives "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston" as the site.
  21. present: It gives the address "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  22. present: It specifies "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  23. present: Identifies "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  24. present: It names "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston".
  25. present: It states "Nu Delta fraternity, which is located at 460 Beacon Street, Boston."
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Directives include "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows," a warning not to prop doors and to report tailgaters, and "Call the MIT Police immediately at 617-253-1212."

  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: Recipients are instructed to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately.
  2. present: Instructs readers to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and report tailgaters.
  3. present: Instructs readers to always lock doors and windows and call MIT Police immediately if they see something.
  4. present: Readers are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately.
  5. present: Readers are told to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and call MIT Police immediately.
  6. present: It tells readers to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows", not prop doors, and call police immediately.
  7. present: Directs readers to lock doors and windows, report tailgaters and call MIT Police immediately.
  8. present: Directs readers to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately.
  9. present: Recipients are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call MIT Police immediately if they see something.
  10. present: Readers are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call MIT Police immediately.
  11. present: Recipients are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately.
  12. present: Recipients are instructed to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police at once.
  13. present: Readers are instructed to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and to call police when they see something.
  14. present: It tells readers to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and to call police at once if something seems wrong.
  15. present: Instructs the reader to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and report tailgaters to police.
  16. present: Recipients are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and to call MIT Police immediately.
  17. present: Recipients are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and to call the police immediately.
  18. present: Recipients are told to lock doors and windows, not prop doors, and call MIT Police immediately.
  19. present: Recipients are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call MIT Police immediately.
  20. present: Tips instruct readers to lock doors and windows, avoid propping doors, and call police immediately.
  21. present: Recipients are told "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and to call police immediately, protective steps.
  22. present: Recipients are told "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and to call police immediately.
  23. present: Instructs the reader to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately.
  24. present: Recipients are told to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately when suspicious.
  25. present: It directs readers to "ALWAYS lock your doors and windows" and call police immediately.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The burglary is timed "at approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017," with day of week, date and clock time all stated.

  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 event is timed "at approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  2. present: Gives "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" as the time of the break in.
  3. present: States "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  4. present: It gives "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017," a clock time with a date.
  5. present: It dates the crime to "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017."
  6. present: The time given is "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  7. present: Places the burglary "at approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  8. present: Gives "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" as the time of the burglary.
  9. present: It gives a clock time and date: "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  10. present: The time is fixed at "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  11. present: The event is timed "at approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  12. present: A precise time is given: "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  13. present: The time given is "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  14. present: The time "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" is stated.
  15. present: Fixes the event at "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  16. present: The time is given precisely: "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  17. present: It gives "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" as the time of the break in.
  18. present: It gives "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" as the time of the crime.
  19. present: It gives "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" as the time of the crime.
  20. present: The time is stated as "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017."
  21. present: The time "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017" anchors the event precisely.
  22. present: The time given is "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  23. present: Specifies "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  24. present: It states the burglary happened "at approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017".
  25. present: Time given as "approximately 11:30AM on Sunday, August 27, 2017."
• Impactabsent1/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 1 of 25. Losses already sustained are itemized, but nothing forecasts harm or severity for the community; the single present vote conflated past theft with potential impact.

  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: The message never says the situation is dangerous or describes potential harm to anyone.
  2. absent: Nothing states potential harm or severity, only the property already taken.
  3. absent: Nothing conveys potential harm or severity beyond the fact that items went missing.
  4. absent: The text lists precautions but never says what harm the intruder could cause.
  5. absent: The notice never explains what danger this poses to people, only recounting the property loss.
  6. absent: The message never states harm potential or severity, describing only an encounter and missing property.
  7. absent: It recounts a theft encounter but never states potential harm or how dangerous the situation is.
  8. absent: No statement of danger or potential consequence appears, only the loss of two items.
  9. absent: The notice never states what harm could follow; it only recounts a property theft.
  10. absent: The notice never says what the hazard could do to people or how dangerous it is.
  11. absent: No consequence or severity statement appears; the suspect simply left and property was missing.
  12. absent: The message never says the situation is dangerous or describes potential harm to anyone.
  13. present: Loss of valuables is the stated consequence, with tips framed around protecting belongings from theft.
  14. absent: No sentence conveys severity or potential harm, only the loss of property already taken.
  15. absent: The notice never describes potential consequences or how dangerous the suspect might be.
  16. absent: No sentence conveys danger or severity; the suspect left peacefully and only property loss is recounted.
  17. absent: The text describes the encounter but never says what harm the intruder posed or could cause.
  18. absent: The message never says the intruder posed danger or what harm could follow.
  19. absent: The text lists stolen items but never says what the risk could do to people or how serious it is.
  20. absent: The message never says what harm could follow; it only recounts the theft and offers tips.
  21. absent: The notice never says what harm could follow, only what was taken in this one case.
  22. absent: The text never says the intruder posed danger or what the crime could cost people.
  23. absent: No statement of potential harm or seriousness beyond describing the property that was taken.
  24. absent: The message never says what harm could follow; it only recounts the theft and gives tips.
  25. absent: The text never says what harm could follow, only recounts the theft and offers prevention tips.