Parking-lot main break cuts water to several halls

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

  0 of 25 passes marked Source present and 25 absent. It does not specifically name a sender, brand, or agency, and "university facilities" only describes affected buildings.

  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: It does not specifically name a sender, brand, or agency, and "university facilities" only describes affected buildings.
  2. absent: Here no sender, branded signature, or named agency appears, and "university facilities" does not name who issued the alert.
  3. absent: The wording never names a sender, branded signature, or issuing agency, and "university facilities" does not identify who sent it.
  4. absent: No sender or issuing agency is identified, and the phrase "university facilities" only describes affected buildings.
  5. absent: The clause mentions "university facilities" but never names a sender, branded signature, or issuing agency.
  6. absent: Readers notice no sender signature, agency, or institution name, since "university facilities" only describes affected buildings.
  7. absent: The message does not name a sender or agency, and "university facilities" is only a place description.
  8. absent: The line mentions "university facilities" and "Oakland Center" but never names a sender or agency.
  9. absent: The copy never names a sender, brand, or agency, and "university facilities" is not a source.
  10. absent: The detail "university facilities" names affected places and does not identify who sent the alert.
  11. absent: The point is that "university facilities" names buildings, not a sending authority.
  12. absent: The claim mentions "university facilities" and "Oakland Center" but names no sending agency or alert brand.
  13. absent: No sender signature, police agency, or named issuer appears, and the term "university facilities" does not identify who sent this.
  14. absent: No issuing authority is named, so the words "university facilities" are not a sender label.
  15. absent: The statement never names a sending office, and "Oakland Center" is only a facility that lost water.
  16. absent: The language refers to "university facilities" and "Oakland Center" without naming who is sending the alert.
  17. absent: The passage never names a sender, and "university facilities" does not identify an issuing authority.
  18. absent: This sentence never names a sender, branded signature, or responding agency, and "university facilities" only describes buildings.
  19. absent: The text says "university facilities" but never names a sender, signature, or responding agency.
  20. absent: The alert never names a sender, signature, or agency, and "university facilities" does not identify who issued it.
  21. absent: The body does not name a sender, brand, or agency, and "university facilities" only describes affected buildings.
  22. absent: The fact is no sender, branded signature, or named agency appears, and "university facilities" does not identify who issued the alert.
  23. absent: No sender signature or agency appears, and "university facilities" does not name who issued the message.
  24. absent: No sender is named, and "university facilities" does not identify an issuing authority for this place.
  25. absent: The instruction never names a sender, a branded signature, or a police or emergency agency.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked Hazard present and 0 absent. It specifically names a "water main break", a concrete infrastructure hazard rather than a generic incident.

  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: It specifically names a "water main break", a concrete infrastructure hazard rather than a generic incident.
  2. present: Here the specific hazard is a "water main break", not a generic incident or situation.
  3. present: The wording names a "water main break", which is a specific hazard rather than a generic incident.
  4. present: The phrase "water main break" names the specific infrastructure hazard.
  5. present: The clause names "water main break", a specific hazard rather than a generic emergency.
  6. present: Readers notice the specific hazard named in "water main break," which is not a generic incident.
  7. present: The message names the specific hazard "water main break".
  8. present: This line names a "water main break", a specific hazard.
  9. present: The copy states the specific hazard "water main break".
  10. present: The detail "water main break" names the specific hazard.
  11. present: The point is that "water main break" names the specific hazard.
  12. present: The claim names a specific hazard, a "water main break", rather than a generic incident.
  13. present: The message names the specific hazard with the term "water main break", which is not a generic incident label.
  14. present: The hazard label "water main break" names the specific threat behind the service loss.
  15. present: The statement names a "water main break", which is a specific hazard rather than a generic incident.
  16. present: The language names a "water main break", which is a specific hazard.
  17. present: The passage names the specific hazard "water main break" rather than a generic incident.
  18. present: This sentence names a specific hazard, a "water main break", rather than a generic emergency.
  19. present: The text names "water main break", a specific hazard rather than a generic incident.
  20. present: The alert names a specific hazard, a "water main break", rather than a generic emergency or incident.
  21. present: The body names a "water main break", which is a specific utility hazard rather than a vague incident.
  22. present: It names a "water main break", and that fact is a specific hazard rather than a generic emergency or incident.
  23. present: The specific threat is a "water main break", which is a concrete hazard name rather than a vague emergency label.
  24. present: A "water main break" is named as the specific hazard at this place.
  25. present: The instruction names a specific hazard, a "water main break", rather than only a generic situation.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked Location present and 0 absent. It specifically locates the break "in the P-1 parking lot" and lists halls plus "facilities on 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 specifically locates the break "in the P-1 parking lot" and lists halls plus "facilities on campus".
  2. present: Here the break is in the "P-1 parking lot" and names halls including "East and West Wilson Hall".
  3. present: The wording places the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and lists halls "on campus".
  4. present: The phrase "P-1 parking lot" gives the break location, with named halls and "on campus".
  5. present: The clause locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and lists halls "on campus".
  6. present: Readers notice several places, including "P-1 parking lot" and halls "on campus."
  7. present: The message locates it at the "P-1 parking lot" and named halls "on campus".
  8. present: The line locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and "on campus".
  9. present: The copy places it in the "P-1 parking lot" and at halls "on campus".
  10. present: The detail "P-1 parking lot" plus halls such as "East and West Wilson Hall" says where.
  11. present: The point is that "P-1 parking lot" and "Wilson Hall" say where.
  12. present: The claim locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and lists halls "on campus".
  13. present: It places the break with the term "P-1 parking lot" and names halls such as "East and West Wilson Hall".
  14. present: The place label "P-1 parking lot" and "on campus" say where the break and pressure loss are.
  15. present: The statement places the break "in the P-1 parking lot" and names several halls "on campus".
  16. present: The language places the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and at halls "on campus".
  17. present: The passage gives a place, the "P-1 parking lot", plus named halls "on campus".
  18. present: This sentence locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and names halls plus "on campus".
  19. present: The text locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and at named halls "on campus".
  20. present: The alert locates the break "in the P-1 parking lot" and names halls and facilities "on campus".
  21. present: The body locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and lists halls plus facilities "on campus".
  22. present: The fact of place is clear: the break is "in the P-1 parking lot" and affects halls "on campus".
  23. present: It places the break "in the P-1 parking lot" and lists halls plus "on campus", giving a clear location name.
  24. present: It gives "P-1 parking lot" plus "Wilson Hall" and "on campus", so the place is clear.
  25. present: The instruction locates the break in the "P-1 parking lot" and names halls and "on campus".
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  0 of 25 passes marked Guidance present and 25 absent. It does not specifically tell recipients what to do, and only reports a "water main break" and "loss of water 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. absent: It does not specifically tell recipients what to do, and only reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service".
  2. absent: Here "has caused the loss of water service" describes effects but never tells recipients what action to take.
  3. absent: The wording only reports a "loss of water service" and never tells recipients what action to take.
  4. absent: The phrase "loss of water service" reports effects but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  5. absent: The clause reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service" but tells recipients no protective action.
  6. absent: Readers notice no protective instruction to recipients, only a description of the break and lost water service.
  7. absent: The message reports the "water main break" but never instructs recipients to take a protective action.
  8. absent: The line describes the break and "loss of water service" but gives no protective instruction.
  9. absent: The copy gives no instruction such as avoid, evacuate, or call, and only reports the break.
  10. absent: The detail reports the break and water loss without telling recipients any protective action.
  11. absent: The point is that a "water main break" is reported with no protective instruction.
  12. absent: The claim reports "loss of water service" but never tells recipients what action to take.
  13. absent: No protective instruction is given, and the term "loss of water service" only describes effects rather than telling people what to do.
  14. absent: No protective action label is given, and "has caused the loss of water service" only describes effects.
  15. absent: The statement reports the "loss of water service" but does not instruct recipients to do anything.
  16. absent: The language reports the break and "loss of water service" but never tells recipients what action to take.
  17. absent: The passage reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service" but never tells recipients what to do.
  18. absent: This sentence describes the break and water loss but gives recipients no protective instruction.
  19. absent: The text reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service" but never tells recipients what to do.
  20. absent: The alert only reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service" and never tells recipients what to do.
  21. absent: The body reports the "water main break" and "loss of water service" but never instructs a protective action.
  22. absent: The fact is the text only describes a "water main break" and the "loss of water service", and it gives no protective instruction.
  23. absent: The text only describes the break and water loss, and it does not name any protective action for recipients.
  24. absent: The text only reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service", with no action for this place.
  25. absent: The instruction only reports a "water main break" and "loss of water service" and never tells recipients what to do.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  0 of 25 passes marked Time present and 25 absent. It does not specifically give a clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "ongoing".

  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. absent: It does not specifically give a clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "ongoing".
  2. absent: Here no clock time, date, or cue such as "now" or "until further notice" appears.
  3. absent: The wording uses "has caused" and "intermittent", neither of which is a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  4. absent: The phrase "intermittent" is not a clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "ongoing".
  5. absent: The clause lacks any clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "until further notice".
  6. absent: Readers notice no clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "today" in the text.
  7. absent: The message says "has caused" and "intermittent" but neither is a clock time, date, or recency cue.
  8. absent: The line says the break "has caused" losses but gives no clock time, date, or "now".
  9. absent: The copy lacks any clock time, date, "now", or "until further notice".
  10. absent: The detail "has caused" marks sequence only and gives no clock time, date, or "now".
  11. absent: The point is that "has caused" and "intermittent" never give a clock time or date.
  12. absent: The claim says the break "has caused" losses but states no clock time, date, or "now".
  13. absent: No clock time, date, or recency term such as "now", "today", or "until further notice" appears in the text.
  14. absent: The words "has caused" are not a time label such as "now", "today", or "until further notice".
  15. absent: The statement includes "has caused" and "intermittent" but no clock time, date, or "now".
  16. absent: The language contains "has caused" and "intermittent" but no clock time, date, or recency cue.
  17. absent: The passage uses "has caused" but gives no clock time, date, "now", or "until further notice".
  18. absent: This sentence has no clock time, date, or recency cue such as "now" or "until further notice".
  19. absent: The text uses "has caused" and "reports" but gives no clock time, date, or "now".
  20. absent: The alert uses "has caused" and "intermittent" but gives no clock time, date, or cue such as "now" or "ongoing".
  21. absent: The body only uses "has caused" and "reports", with no clock time, date, or "until further notice".
  22. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue appears, and the fact is that "has caused" does not say when the break occurred.
  23. absent: The past wording "has caused" does not give a clock time, date, or recency name such as now.
  24. absent: No time word appears, and "has caused" does not say when the break hit this place.
  25. absent: The instruction lacks any when cue: no clock time, date, "now", "today", or "until further notice" appears.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  25 of 25 passes marked Impact present and 0 absent. It specifically says the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure" at facilities.

  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: It specifically says the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure" at facilities.
  2. present: Here the break "has caused the loss of water service", which states a concrete consequence for facilities.
  3. present: The wording says the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure".
  4. present: The phrase "loss of water service" states the consequence the break caused for facilities.
  5. present: The clause states the break "has caused the loss of water service" to campus facilities.
  6. present: Readers notice the break "has caused the loss of water service," a stated consequence for facilities.
  7. present: The message says the break "has caused the loss of water service", stating a concrete consequence.
  8. present: The line states the break "has caused the loss of water service" to several facilities.
  9. present: The copy says the break "has caused the loss of water service", which states a consequence.
  10. present: The detail "loss of water service" states the break's consequence for campus facilities.
  11. present: The point is that the break "has caused the loss of water service", a stated consequence.
  12. present: The claim states the break "has caused the loss of water service" to facilities.
  13. present: The consequence is stated by the term "loss of water service" to named facilities, plus "loss of water pressure".
  14. present: The consequence label "loss of water service" states what the break did to facilities.
  15. present: The statement says the break "has caused the loss of water service" to university facilities.
  16. present: The language says the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure".
  17. present: The passage states consequences by saying the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure".
  18. present: This sentence states the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure".
  19. present: The text says the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure".
  20. present: The alert states the break "has caused the loss of water service" and an "intermittent loss of water pressure".
  21. present: The body says the break "has caused the loss of water service" and "loss of water pressure", stating consequences.
  22. present: The break "has caused the loss of water service" to facilities, and that fact states a concrete consequence for campus buildings.
  23. present: The break "has caused the loss of water service", which states a consequence beyond the hazard name alone.
  24. present: The break "has caused the loss of water service", which states a consequence at this place.
  25. present: The instruction states a consequence: the break "has caused the loss of water service" to facilities.