Caldwell Lab suspicious package evacuation

To check this alert, Claude (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

  source is absent based on the short-form wording (25-pass consensus).

  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: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p0)
  2. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p1)
  3. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p2)
  4. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p3)
  5. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p4)
  6. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p5)
  7. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p6)
  8. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p7)
  9. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p8)
  10. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p9)
  11. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p10)
  12. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p11)
  13. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p12)
  14. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p13)
  15. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p14)
  16. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p15)
  17. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p16)
  18. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p17)
  19. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p18)
  20. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p19)
  21. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p20)
  22. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p21)
  23. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p22)
  24. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p23)
  25. absent: No explicit alert-system product brand in the short-form body (p24)
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  hazard is present based on the short-form wording (25-pass consensus).

  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: Hazard/incident type is concretely stated (p0)
  2. present: What happened is named in plain language (p1)
  3. present: Core threat or emergency class is explicit (p2)
  4. present: Incident category is recoverable from the text (p3)
  5. present: Hazard phrase appears in the short-form body (p4)
  6. present: The emergency type is not merely implied (p5)
  7. present: Event class is stated for the audience (p6)
  8. present: Hazard element is a named incident or weather product (p7)
  9. present: The message tells what the emergency is (p8)
  10. present: Threat type is written clearly (p9)
  11. present: Incident description is concrete (p10)
  12. present: Hazard is specified rather than generic 'emergency only' (p11)
  13. present: Named hazard appears after the product label (p12)
  14. present: What the community faces is stated (p13)
  15. present: Emergency class is explicit in the wording (p14)
  16. present: Hazard vocabulary is present and specific (p15)
  17. present: The text identifies the triggering condition (p16)
  18. present: Incident type can be coded from the wording alone (p17)
  19. present: Hazard is a distinct clause in the message (p18)
  20. present: Named risk is present for the audience (p19)
  21. present: The post states the nature of the emergency (p20)
  22. present: Hazard content is more than a bare all-clear (p21)
  23. present: Threat description is included in the blast (p22)
  24. present: What is wrong is articulated in the text (p23)
  25. present: Hazard element meets the present threshold (p24)
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  location is present based on the short-form wording (25-pass consensus).

  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: Location is named at place or campus scale (p0)
  2. present: Geographic focus is explicit in the text (p1)
  3. present: Where applies is stated for the audience (p2)
  4. present: Place name or campus area is present (p3)
  5. present: Location clause identifies the affected area (p4)
  6. present: Spatial scope is recoverable from the wording (p5)
  7. present: The message points to a concrete place (p6)
  8. present: Campus/building/area is named (p7)
  9. present: Location is not left to inference alone (p8)
  10. present: Place detail appears in the short form (p9)
  11. present: Geographic referent is written out (p10)
  12. present: The text anchors the event in space (p11)
  13. present: Affected location is specified (p12)
  14. present: Where to apply the guidance is clear (p13)
  15. present: Location element is present as a named place (p14)
  16. present: Area of concern is stated (p15)
  17. present: Place identity is in the body (p16)
  18. present: Spatial focus is explicit (p17)
  19. present: Named site or campus zone is present (p18)
  20. present: Location is coded present from place language (p19)
  21. present: The message identifies where (p20)
  22. present: Geographic cue is in the alert text (p21)
  23. present: Place is stated rather than assumed (p22)
  24. present: Location string is concrete (p23)
  25. present: Where-element threshold is met (p24)
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  guidance is present based on the short-form wording (25-pass consensus).

  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: Protective or operational instruction is explicit (p0)
  2. present: Guidance tells the audience what to do (p1)
  3. present: Action language is present (avoid/shelter/cancel/prepare) (p2)
  4. present: Directive content is more than hazard naming (p3)
  5. present: The text instructs behavior or ops status (p4)
  6. present: Guidance element is recoverable as an instruction (p5)
  7. present: Audience is told how to respond (p6)
  8. present: Actionable guidance appears in the short form (p7)
  9. present: Instructional clause is present (p8)
  10. present: Protective action or ops decision is stated (p9)
  11. present: Guidance is explicit rather than implied only (p10)
  12. present: The message includes a do/don't or status directive (p11)
  13. present: Operational instruction is written (p12)
  14. present: Community is directed to act or stay clear (p13)
  15. present: Guidance threshold is met by action wording (p14)
  16. present: Instruction is not only a bare hazard label (p15)
  17. present: What to do next is stated (p16)
  18. present: Directive language is present (p17)
  19. present: Guidance is a distinct instructional component (p18)
  20. present: Audience action is specified (p19)
  21. present: The text contains protective or status guidance (p20)
  22. present: Instruction element is coded present (p21)
  23. present: Actionable language is in the blast (p22)
  24. present: Guidance is concrete and usable (p23)
  25. present: Response instruction is explicit (p24)
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  time is absent based on the short-form wording (25-pass consensus).

  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: No explicit time window or clock bound is stated
  2. absent: Temporal validity is not written in the short form
  3. absent: No until/when clock detail appears
  4. absent: Time element is absent from the body
  5. absent: No date/time bound is specified in-text
  6. absent: Message lacks an explicit temporal marker
  7. absent: No clock window is provided
  8. absent: Temporal element does not meet present threshold
  9. absent: No until-time or event-time is stated
  10. absent: Time is not coded present on this wording
  11. absent: No explicit temporal scope in the alert
  12. absent: Clock/date validity is missing
  13. absent: No time-bound language appears
  14. absent: Temporal detail is not present
  15. absent: Message does not state when/until
  16. absent: No explicit time cue in short form
  17. absent: Time element absent on this blast
  18. absent: No validity window is written
  19. absent: Temporal information is not provided
  20. absent: No clock reference appears
  21. absent: Time is not specified in the text
  22. absent: No when-element language is present
  23. absent: Temporal bound is missing
  24. absent: No explicit time frame stated
  25. absent: Time element coded absent
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  impact is absent based on the short-form wording (25-pass consensus).

  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: No casualty or named-population impact is stated
  2. absent: Impact element is absent (no deaths/injuries/displaced counts)
  3. absent: No impact quantification appears in the text
  4. absent: Message does not report human impact numbers
  5. absent: No named-population consequence is stated
  6. absent: Impact is not present as casualties or damages
  7. absent: No injury/fatality language is included
  8. absent: Impact element does not meet present threshold
  9. absent: No population-impact clause is written
  10. absent: Human impact is not quantified here
  11. absent: No casualty statement appears
  12. absent: Impact is absent from the short form
  13. absent: No deaths/injuries are reported in-text
  14. absent: Named impact is not present
  15. absent: No consequence-to-people numbers stated
  16. absent: Impact element coded absent
  17. absent: Message lacks impact quantification
  18. absent: No human-impact detail is provided
  19. absent: Casualty/impact clause is missing
  20. absent: Impact threshold not met
  21. absent: No stated injuries or deaths
  22. absent: Population impact is not described
  23. absent: Impact language is absent
  24. absent: No impact metrics appear
  25. absent: Impact element is not present