Gunshot into a residence on 11th Street North

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.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  The Fargo Police Department is named as the investigating and issuing authority of the posted release.

  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 deciding words are "The Fargo Police Department", so this element is present.
  2. present: This read treats "The Fargo Police Department" as enough to mark the element present.
  3. present: Quoted evidence "The Fargo Police Department" is the specific language that carries the element.
  4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "The Fargo Police Department".
  5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "The Fargo Police Department" in the body.
  6. present: The message supplies "The Fargo Police Department", which satisfies the element on this pass.
  7. present: On this independent read, "The Fargo Police Department" is the hook that makes the element present.
  8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "The Fargo Police Department".
  9. present: A first-time reader would see "The Fargo Police Department" and know the element is there.
  10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "The Fargo Police Department".
  11. present: The body names it with "The Fargo Police Department", so the vote is present.
  12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "The Fargo Police Department".
  13. present: Because the alert says "The Fargo Police Department", the element is not missing.
  14. present: The quoted span "The Fargo Police Department" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
  15. present: Present: "The Fargo Police Department" is in the transmitted text.
  16. present: I am scoring present after locating "The Fargo Police Department" in the message.
  17. present: The element is carried by "The Fargo Police Department" rather than by implication alone.
  18. present: Direct language "The Fargo Police Department" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
  19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "The Fargo Police Department" as the present cue.
  20. present: This reviewer finds "The Fargo Police Department" and therefore records present.
  21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "The Fargo Police Department".
  22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "The Fargo Police Department".
  23. present: From the four corners of the message, "The Fargo Police Department" establishes the element.
  24. present: I quote "The Fargo Police Department" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
  25. present: Independent judgment: "The Fargo Police Department" is on the page, so present.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  shots fired and a gunshot into a residence are specific named offenses.

  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: The deciding words are "shots fired", so this element is present.
  2. present: This read treats "shots fired" as enough to mark the element present.
  3. present: Quoted evidence "shots fired" is the specific language that carries the element.
  4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "shots fired".
  5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "shots fired" in the body.
  6. present: The message supplies "shots fired", which satisfies the element on this pass.
  7. present: On this independent read, "shots fired" is the hook that makes the element present.
  8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "shots fired".
  9. present: A first-time reader would see "shots fired" and know the element is there.
  10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "shots fired".
  11. present: The body names it with "shots fired", so the vote is present.
  12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "shots fired".
  13. present: Because the alert says "shots fired", the element is not missing.
  14. present: The quoted span "shots fired" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
  15. present: Present: "shots fired" is in the transmitted text.
  16. present: I am scoring present after locating "shots fired" in the message.
  17. present: The element is carried by "shots fired" rather than by implication alone.
  18. present: Direct language "shots fired" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
  19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "shots fired" as the present cue.
  20. present: This reviewer finds "shots fired" and therefore records present.
  21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "shots fired".
  22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "shots fired".
  23. present: From the four corners of the message, "shots fired" establishes the element.
  24. present: I quote "shots fired" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
  25. present: Independent judgment: "shots fired" is on the page, so present.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  the 1200 block of 11th Street North is a named place.

  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: The deciding words are "the 1200 block of 11th Street North", so this element is present.
  2. present: This read treats "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" as enough to mark the element present.
  3. present: Quoted evidence "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" is the specific language that carries the element.
  4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "the 1200 block of 11th Street North".
  5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" in the body.
  6. present: The message supplies "the 1200 block of 11th Street North", which satisfies the element on this pass.
  7. present: On this independent read, "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" is the hook that makes the element present.
  8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "the 1200 block of 11th Street North".
  9. present: A first-time reader would see "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" and know the element is there.
  10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "the 1200 block of 11th Street North".
  11. present: The body names it with "the 1200 block of 11th Street North", so the vote is present.
  12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "the 1200 block of 11th Street North".
  13. present: Because the alert says "the 1200 block of 11th Street North", the element is not missing.
  14. present: The quoted span "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
  15. present: Present: "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" is in the transmitted text.
  16. present: I am scoring present after locating "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" in the message.
  17. present: The element is carried by "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" rather than by implication alone.
  18. present: Direct language "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" is what this pass uses for a present vote.
  19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" as the present cue.
  20. present: This reviewer finds "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" and therefore records present.
  21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "the 1200 block of 11th Street North".
  22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "the 1200 block of 11th Street North".
  23. present: From the four corners of the message, "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" establishes the element.
  24. present: I quote "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" as the sole basis for present on this pass.
  25. present: Independent judgment: "the 1200 block of 11th Street North" is on the page, so present.
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  The text reports an arrest and that the investigation is ongoing; it does not instruct recipients to take a protective action.

  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. absent: This pass finds no a protective-action instruction to the recipient anywhere in the body, so the element is absent.
  2. absent: Absent: a full read never turns up a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  3. absent: The message never supplies a protective-action instruction to the recipient, which this rubric requires.
  4. absent: I vote absent because a protective-action instruction to the recipient is not in the transmitted text.
  5. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  6. absent: On this read the alert is silent on a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  7. absent: Absent follows from the lack of a protective-action instruction to the recipient after reading the whole product.
  8. absent: A recipient would not learn a protective-action instruction to the recipient from this text.
  9. absent: The element fails: a protective-action instruction to the recipient does not appear.
  10. absent: I cannot mark present without a protective-action instruction to the recipient, and it is not there.
  11. absent: This independent pass sees no a protective-action instruction to the recipient to quote.
  12. absent: Coding absent; the body omits a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  13. absent: No clause in the alert does the work of a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  14. absent: The four corners of the message leave a protective-action instruction to the recipient unspecified.
  15. absent: Absent vote: a protective-action instruction to the recipient would have to be invented.
  16. absent: This reviewer looked for a protective-action instruction to the recipient and did not find it.
  17. absent: The text stays at other facts and never reaches a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  18. absent: Without a protective-action instruction to the recipient in the wording, the element is missing.
  19. absent: Present would need a protective-action instruction to the recipient; that language is not used.
  20. absent: I record absent after confirming the product lacks a protective-action instruction to the recipient.
  21. absent: The alert does not identify a protective-action instruction to the recipient in any sentence.
  22. absent: Missing a protective-action instruction to the recipient is the reason for the absent vote.
  23. absent: This pass will not infer a protective-action instruction to the recipient from neighboring facts.
  24. absent: No quoted span equals a protective-action instruction to the recipient, so absent.
  25. absent: Independent judgment: a protective-action instruction to the recipient is not on the page.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m. is an explicit time.

  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 deciding words are "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.", so this element is present.
  2. present: This read treats "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." as enough to mark the element present.
  3. present: Quoted evidence "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." is the specific language that carries the element.
  4. present: I mark present because the alert includes "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.".
  5. present: Presence follows from the phrase "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." in the body.
  6. present: The message supplies "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.", which satisfies the element on this pass.
  7. present: On this independent read, "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." is the hook that makes the element present.
  8. present: Element is present: the text itself contains "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.".
  9. present: A first-time reader would see "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." and know the element is there.
  10. present: Coding present from the explicit wording "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.".
  11. present: The body names it with "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.", so the vote is present.
  12. present: This pass votes present on the strength of "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.".
  13. present: Because the alert says "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.", the element is not missing.
  14. present: The quoted span "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." is sufficient and does not need outside knowledge.
  15. present: Present: "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." is in the transmitted text.
  16. present: I am scoring present after locating "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." in the message.
  17. present: The element is carried by "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." rather than by implication alone.
  18. present: Direct language "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." is what this pass uses for a present vote.
  19. present: Nothing in the rest of the text undoes "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." as the present cue.
  20. present: This reviewer finds "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." and therefore records present.
  21. present: The alert is not silent here: it has "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.".
  22. present: Present vote rests on the visible words "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m.".
  23. present: From the four corners of the message, "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." establishes the element.
  24. present: I quote "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." as the sole basis for present on this pass.
  25. present: Independent judgment: "On Sunday, September 8 at 12:55 a.m." is on the page, so present.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No one was injured is a negative finding; naming shots fired is the hazard, not extra severity language such as dangerous.

  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: This pass finds no a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired anywhere in the body, so the element is absent.
  2. absent: Absent: a full read never turns up a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  3. absent: The message never supplies a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired, which this rubric requires.
  4. absent: I vote absent because a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired is not in the transmitted text.
  5. absent: Nothing in the wording amounts to a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  6. absent: On this read the alert is silent on a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  7. absent: Absent follows from the lack of a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired after reading the whole product.
  8. absent: A recipient would not learn a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired from this text.
  9. absent: The element fails: a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired does not appear.
  10. absent: I cannot mark present without a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired, and it is not there.
  11. absent: This independent pass sees no a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired to quote.
  12. absent: Coding absent; the body omits a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  13. absent: No clause in the alert does the work of a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  14. absent: The four corners of the message leave a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired unspecified.
  15. absent: Absent vote: a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired would have to be invented.
  16. absent: This reviewer looked for a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired and did not find it.
  17. absent: The text stays at other facts and never reaches a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  18. absent: Without a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired in the wording, the element is missing.
  19. absent: Present would need a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired; that language is not used.
  20. absent: I record absent after confirming the product lacks a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired.
  21. absent: The alert does not identify a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired in any sentence.
  22. absent: Missing a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired is the reason for the absent vote.
  23. absent: This pass will not infer a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired from neighboring facts.
  24. absent: No quoted span equals a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired, so absent.
  25. absent: Independent judgment: a stated harm or severity beyond naming the shots fired is not on the page.