Lima campus severe thunderstorm warning from regional NWS office

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

  Arbitrator synthesis: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature). Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  2. present: Full read: branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  3. present: Independent pass finds branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  5. present: Coding judgment: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  6. present: From the wording, branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  7. present: Alert text shows branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  8. present: Reader notes branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  9. present: Decision basis: branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  10. present: Justified because branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  11. present: The deciding point is that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  12. present: Element call: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  13. present: Text supports that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  14. present: On a full independent read, branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  15. present: Pass judgment: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  16. present: Source of the call is that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  17. present: After reading the full product, branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  18. present: Clear from the message that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  20. present: Body-level evidence: branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  21. present: Message content establishes that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  22. present: Scoring this element: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  23. present: Primary evidence is that branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  24. present: Re-read confirms branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
  25. present: Final independent call: Branded sender or authority appears in the text (e.g. the opening signature).
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm". Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  2. present: Full read: specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  3. present: Independent pass finds specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  5. present: Coding judgment: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  6. present: From the wording, specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  7. present: Alert text shows specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  8. present: Reader notes specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  9. present: Decision basis: specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  10. present: Justified because specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  11. present: The deciding point is that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  12. present: Element call: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  13. present: Text supports that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  14. present: On a full independent read, specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  15. present: Pass judgment: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  16. present: Source of the call is that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  17. present: After reading the full product, specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  18. present: Clear from the message that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  20. present: Body-level evidence: specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  21. present: Message content establishes that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  22. present: Scoring this element: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  23. present: Primary evidence is that specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  24. present: Re-read confirms specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
  25. present: Final independent call: Specific hazard is named: "severe thunderstorm".
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: Location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus". Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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 specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  2. present: Full read: location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  3. present: Independent pass finds location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  5. present: Coding judgment: Location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  6. present: From the wording, location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  7. present: Alert text shows location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  8. present: Reader notes location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  9. present: Decision basis: location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  10. present: Justified because location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  11. present: The deciding point is that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  12. present: Element call: Location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  13. present: Text supports that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  14. present: On a full independent read, location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  15. present: Pass judgment: Location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  16. present: Source of the call is that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  17. present: After reading the full product, location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  18. present: Clear from the message that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  20. present: Body-level evidence: location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  21. present: Message content establishes that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  22. present: Scoring this element: Location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  23. present: Primary evidence is that location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  24. present: Re-read confirms location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
  25. present: Final independent call: Location is specified: "OSU Lima Campus".
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients. Vote total supports verdict 0.

  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: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  2. absent: Full read: no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  3. absent: Independent pass finds no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  4. absent: Verdict rests on the fact that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  5. absent: Coding judgment: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  6. absent: From the wording, no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  7. absent: Alert text shows no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  8. absent: Reader notes no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  9. absent: Decision basis: no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  10. absent: Justified because no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  11. absent: The deciding point is that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  12. absent: Element call: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  13. absent: Text supports that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  14. absent: On a full independent read, no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  15. absent: Pass judgment: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  16. absent: Source of the call is that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  17. absent: After reading the full product, no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  18. absent: Clear from the message that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  19. absent: This pass codes present or absent from: no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  20. absent: Body-level evidence: no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  21. absent: Message content establishes that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  22. absent: Scoring this element: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  23. absent: Primary evidence is that no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  24. absent: Re-read confirms no protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
  25. absent: Final independent call: No protective action instruction is directed at recipients.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence). Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  2. present: Full read: time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  3. present: Independent pass finds time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  4. present: Verdict rests on the fact that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  5. present: Coding judgment: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  6. present: From the wording, time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  7. present: Alert text shows time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  8. present: Reader notes time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  9. present: Decision basis: time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  10. present: Justified because time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  11. present: The deciding point is that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  12. present: Element call: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  13. present: Text supports that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  14. present: On a full independent read, time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  15. present: Pass judgment: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  16. present: Source of the call is that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  17. present: After reading the full product, time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  18. present: Clear from the message that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  19. present: This pass codes present or absent from: time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  20. present: Body-level evidence: time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  21. present: Message content establishes that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  22. present: Scoring this element: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  23. present: Primary evidence is that time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  24. present: Re-read confirms time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
  25. present: Final independent call: Time or recency cue is present (clock time, date window, currently, or update cadence).
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: No consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard. Vote total supports verdict 0.

  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 consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  2. absent: Full read: no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  3. absent: Independent pass finds no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  4. absent: Verdict rests on the fact that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  5. absent: Coding judgment: No consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  6. absent: From the wording, no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  7. absent: Alert text shows no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  8. absent: Reader notes no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  9. absent: Decision basis: no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  10. absent: Justified because no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  11. absent: The deciding point is that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  12. absent: Element call: No consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  13. absent: Text supports that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  14. absent: On a full independent read, no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  15. absent: Pass judgment: No consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  16. absent: Source of the call is that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  17. absent: After reading the full product, no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  18. absent: Clear from the message that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  19. absent: This pass codes present or absent from: no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  20. absent: Body-level evidence: no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  21. absent: Message content establishes that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  22. absent: Scoring this element: No consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  23. absent: Primary evidence is that no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  24. absent: Re-read confirms no consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.
  25. absent: Final independent call: No consequence or severity language beyond naming the hazard.