IRS Phone Scam and Apartment Rental Scam

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, and 25 of 25 reads agree: the notice opens "The MIT Police have been made aware of recent scam incidents" and closes with a named MIT Police crime analyst, so the sending authority is unmistakable.

  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 first words are "The MIT Police have been made aware", and a Crime Analyst signs the notice.
  2. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and closes with the department's crime analyst.
  3. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and is signed by an MIT Police crime analyst.
  4. present: "The MIT Police have been made aware" and the analyst signature establish the sending authority.
  5. present: "The MIT Police have been made aware of recent scam incidents" identifies the police as sender.
  6. present: It begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and closes with a named crime analyst of the department.
  7. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware", identifying the police as the sender.
  8. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware", so the sending authority is named up front.
  9. present: The notice begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and is signed by an MIT Police crime analyst.
  10. present: "The MIT Police have been made aware" and the analyst signature identify the sending authority.
  11. present: "The MIT Police have been made aware" identifies the police department as sender.
  12. present: The opening "The MIT Police have been made aware" plus the signed crime analyst identifies the sender.
  13. present: The alert states "The MIT Police have been made aware" and is signed by an MIT Police crime analyst.
  14. present: "The MIT Police have been made aware" plus the crime analyst signature identify the sender.
  15. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware of recent scam incidents", identifying the sending agency.
  16. present: It begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and is signed by a department crime analyst.
  17. present: The text begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and closes with the department's address.
  18. present: Text begins "The MIT Police have been made aware of recent scam incidents", identifying the source agency.
  19. present: It begins "The MIT Police have been made aware of recent scam incidents", identifying the issuing department.
  20. present: The message begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and closes with the MIT Police Department.
  21. present: It begins "The MIT Police have been made aware of recent scam incidents", naming the police as sender.
  22. present: "The MIT Police have been made aware" opens the notice and the police department signs it.
  23. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware", identifying the police as sender.
  24. present: The message begins "The MIT Police have been made aware" and is signed by a department crime analyst.
  25. present: Begins "The MIT Police have been made aware," identifying the police as sender.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present on a 25 of 25 vote. The notice names two concrete frauds under its own headings, an "IRS Phone Scam" in which callers pose as tax employees, and an online "Apartment Rental Scam".

  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: Two specific frauds are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an online "Apartment Rental Scam".
  2. present: Names two specific hazards: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  3. present: Names two specific frauds: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an online "Apartment Rental Scam".
  4. present: Two specific frauds are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam."
  5. present: Two specific threats are named: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  6. present: Two specific frauds are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  7. present: Names two specific threats: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "online apartment rental scam".
  8. present: Names two specific frauds, an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  9. present: Two specific threats are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an online "Apartment Rental Scam".
  10. present: Two specific hazards are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  11. present: It names two specific threats: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  12. present: Two specific threats are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  13. present: Two specific frauds are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an online "Apartment Rental Scam".
  14. present: Two specific frauds are named: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  15. present: Names two specific threats: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  16. present: Two specific frauds are named, an "IRS Phone Scam" and an online "Apartment Rental Scam".
  17. present: Two specific frauds are named: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  18. present: Two specific threats are named: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  19. present: Two specific frauds are named: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  20. present: Two specific threats are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam."
  21. present: Two specific frauds are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  22. present: Two specific threats are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam".
  23. present: Names two specific threats: an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  24. present: Two specific threats are named, an IRS tax phone scam and an online apartment rental scam.
  25. present: Two specific threats are named: an "IRS Phone Scam" and an "Apartment Rental Scam."
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, with 0 of 25 reads finding any place. The text itself refuses to localize the threat, saying these scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere", and reaches victims by phone and email.

  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 place is identified for the threat; the text says these scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  2. absent: The text says the scams "happen everywhere" and ties them to no campus place or address.
  3. absent: No place is given; the note says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  4. absent: It says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere," giving no place at all.
  5. absent: It says these scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere," giving no place at all.
  6. absent: No place is given for the scams, which are said to "happen everywhere" and reach victims by phone and email.
  7. absent: No place is tied to the threat; it says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  8. absent: No place is given for the incidents, and the text says the scams "happen everywhere", not somewhere.
  9. absent: No place is identified; it says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere", which locates nothing.
  10. absent: No place is given, the notice says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  11. absent: No place is given for the scams; the text says they "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  12. absent: The notice stresses these scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere", giving no place for the threat.
  13. absent: No place is given for the hazard; the notice stresses these scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  14. absent: It says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere" and locates no incident anywhere.
  15. absent: No campus, building, or area is given; the text stresses these scams "happen everywhere".
  16. absent: No place is given; the text says these scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere".
  17. absent: The scams are described as happening by phone and online and "not unique to MIT", with no place given.
  18. absent: No place is identified; the notice stresses these scams "happen everywhere" rather than a campus location.
  19. absent: The alert explicitly says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere", and gives no place.
  20. absent: It says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere," giving no particular place.
  21. absent: No place is identified; the notice stresses these scams "happen everywhere" rather than naming a site.
  22. absent: No place is given for the threat; the text stresses the scams "happen everywhere", not any campus site.
  23. absent: It says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere", giving no place where the threat is.
  24. absent: It explicitly says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere", naming no place of occurrence.
  25. absent: No place is given; the text says the scams "are not unique to MIT, they happen everywhere."
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present by 25 of 25. Protective instructions are explicit, including "Never give out personal information over the phone or online" and a warning to "Be suspicious if you're asked to use a wire transfer service".

  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: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to refuse wire transfer requests.
  2. present: Gives direct instructions such as "Never give out personal information over the phone or online".
  3. present: Directs readers never to give personal information by phone, avoid wire transfers, and notify MIT Police.
  4. present: It tells readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  5. present: Readers are told never to give personal information by phone and to distrust wire transfer requests.
  6. present: It directs readers to "Never give out personal information over the phone or online" and to avoid wire transfers.
  7. present: Advises never giving personal information by phone, avoiding wire transfers and notifying MIT Police.
  8. present: Gives concrete actions: "Never give out personal information over the phone or online" and avoid wire transfers.
  9. present: It tells readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  10. present: It instructs readers to "Never give out personal information over the phone" and avoid wire transfers.
  11. present: Many instructions to recipients, such as "Never give out personal information over the phone".
  12. present: It instructs readers to "Never give out personal information over the phone or online" and avoid wire transfers.
  13. present: Clear instructions follow: never give personal information over the phone, be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  14. present: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  15. present: Instructs readers to "Never give out personal information over the phone or online" and to avoid wire transfers.
  16. present: It gives protective instructions such as "Never give out personal information over the phone or online".
  17. present: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  18. present: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfers.
  19. present: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  20. present: It advises never giving personal information by phone or online and being suspicious of wire transfers.
  21. present: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfer requests.
  22. present: It instructs readers never to give out personal information and to be suspicious of wire transfers.
  23. present: Tells readers never to give out personal information and to avoid wire transfers.
  24. present: It instructs readers never to give personal information by phone and to distrust wire transfer requests.
  25. present: It instructs readers to "Never give out personal information over the phone" and to avoid wire transfers.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25, though only as recency. No clock time or date of the calls is given, and the reads rest entirely on "recent scam incidents", which places the activity in the near past.

  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 phrase "recent scam incidents" supplies a recency cue for the warning.
  2. present: Refers to "recent scam incidents" and to demands to pay "immediately".
  3. present: Refers to "recent scam incidents", a recency cue placing the warning in the present.
  4. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" conveys recency even without a clock time.
  5. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" conveys that the activity is current.
  6. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" supplies recency even without a clock time.
  7. present: Says the police learned of "recent scam incidents", a recency cue, plus dated free credit report advice.
  8. present: Refers to "recent scam incidents", a recency cue placing them in the near past.
  9. present: The recency cue "recent scam incidents" signals a current, ongoing threat.
  10. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" conveys recency even though no clock time is given.
  11. present: It refers to "recent scam incidents", a recency cue.
  12. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" supplies a recency cue even without a clock time.
  13. present: It refers to "recent scam incidents", conveying current relevance.
  14. present: "recent scam incidents" conveys recency even though no clock time or date is given.
  15. present: The word "recent" signals recency of the reported scam activity.
  16. present: It refers to "recent scam incidents", a recency cue placing the threat in the present.
  17. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" conveys that these are current and ongoing.
  18. present: The word "recent" in "recent scam incidents" supplies a recency cue for the warning.
  19. present: The reference to "recent scam incidents" conveys current relevance and recency.
  20. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" signals recency, though no clock time is offered.
  21. present: The word "recent" signals recency even though no specific date of the scam calls is given.
  22. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" establishes recency for the reader.
  23. present: Refers to "recent scam incidents", a recency cue.
  24. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" conveys recency even without a clock time.
  25. present: The phrase "recent scam incidents" signals recency even without a clock time.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Financial consequence is spelled out: victims are told they "owe thousands of dollars", pay in gift cards, and of wired deposits, "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".

  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: Financial harm is spelled out: victims lose "thousands of dollars" and "once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  2. present: Conveys the harm: victims lose "thousands of dollars" and wired money is "gone for good".
  3. present: States real consequences: victims are told they owe thousands and pay in gift cards, and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  4. present: It spells out the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" and "once that money is gone, it's gone for good."
  5. present: It spells out the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" in gift cards and wired money is "gone for good."
  6. present: It conveys the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" in gift cards, and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  7. present: Conveys consequence: victims owe or lose "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  8. present: Conveys the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  9. present: It spells out the harm: victims lose thousands in gift cards and wired deposits, and "once that money is gone, it is gone for good".
  10. present: It spells out the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  11. present: Consequences are spelled out: victims owe "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  12. present: It spells out the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  13. present: Financial harm is explicit: victims are told they owe thousands, and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  14. present: Consequences are spelled out: victims owe "thousands of dollars", face arrest threats, and "once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  15. present: Conveys loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" in gift cards, and wired deposits are "gone for good".
  16. present: It states the potential harm: victims are told they "owe thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  17. present: It warns victims are pressured for "thousands of dollars" and that wired deposit money is "gone for good".
  18. present: Consequences are spelled out: victims lose thousands via gift cards and wired money that "is gone for good".
  19. present: It warns victims are told they "owe thousands of dollars" and that wired money "is gone for good", a stated loss.
  20. present: It states victims are told they owe "thousands of dollars" and that wired money is "gone for good."
  21. present: Consequences are spelled out: victims "owe thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  22. present: It spells out the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  23. present: Warns victims are told they owe thousands and that wired money "is gone for good", a stated loss.
  24. present: Consequences are spelled out: victims lose thousands in gift cards and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good".
  25. present: It spells out the loss: victims pay "thousands of dollars" and "Once that money is gone, it's gone for good."