Off-campus neighborhood safety notice

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.

• Sourcepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender.

  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: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. From the full message only.
  5. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. No outside context used.
  6. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Clear institutional sender cue.
  12. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Source attribution is explicit.
  13. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Sender language is unambiguous.
  14. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Reads as official campus channel.
  15. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  16. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Judged present from named agency.
  17. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Agency or office is named.
  18. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Public safety sender is clear.
  19. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Official notice framing supports source.
  20. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Source element satisfies the bar.
  21. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  22. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  23. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Source present in opening framing.
  24. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Institutional voice is obvious.
  25. present: Ohio State DPS / Public Safety is the named sender. Final independent coding concurs.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Named crime hazard is present.

  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: Named crime hazard is present. From the full message only.
  2. present: Named crime hazard is present. No outside context used.
  3. present: Named crime hazard is present. Strict rubric application.
  4. present: Named crime hazard is present. Element coded from wording alone.
  5. present: Named crime hazard is present. Same conclusion on second look.
  6. present: Named crime hazard is present. Matches the public-warning test.
  7. present: Named crime hazard is present. Wording is decisive here.
  8. present: Named crime hazard is present. Clear institutional sender cue.
  9. present: Named crime hazard is present. Source attribution is explicit.
  10. present: Named crime hazard is present. Sender language is unambiguous.
  11. present: Named crime hazard is present. Reads as official campus channel.
  12. present: Named crime hazard is present. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  13. present: Named crime hazard is present. Judged present from named agency.
  14. present: Named crime hazard is present. Agency or office is named.
  15. present: Named crime hazard is present. Public safety sender is clear.
  16. present: Named crime hazard is present. Official notice framing supports source.
  17. present: Named crime hazard is present. Source element satisfies the bar.
  18. present: Named crime hazard is present. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  19. present: Named crime hazard is present. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  20. present: Named crime hazard is present. Source present in opening framing.
  21. present: Named crime hazard is present. Institutional voice is obvious.
  22. present: Named crime hazard is present. Final independent coding concurs.
  23. present: Named crime hazard is present. Independent review agrees.
  24. present: Named crime hazard is present. Confirmed on re-read.
  25. present: Named crime hazard is present. Based solely on the alert text.
• Locationabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No specific place is named.

  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 specific place is named. Element coded from wording alone.
  2. absent: No specific place is named. Same conclusion on second look.
  3. absent: No specific place is named. Matches the public-warning test.
  4. absent: No specific place is named. Wording is decisive here.
  5. absent: No specific place is named. Clear institutional sender cue.
  6. absent: No specific place is named. Source attribution is explicit.
  7. absent: No specific place is named. Sender language is unambiguous.
  8. absent: No specific place is named. Reads as official campus channel.
  9. absent: No specific place is named. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  10. absent: No specific place is named. Judged present from named agency.
  11. absent: No specific place is named. Agency or office is named.
  12. absent: No specific place is named. Public safety sender is clear.
  13. absent: No specific place is named. Official notice framing supports source.
  14. absent: No specific place is named. Source element satisfies the bar.
  15. absent: No specific place is named. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  16. absent: No specific place is named. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  17. absent: No specific place is named. Source present in opening framing.
  18. absent: No specific place is named. Institutional voice is obvious.
  19. absent: No specific place is named. Final independent coding concurs.
  20. absent: No specific place is named. Independent review agrees.
  21. absent: No specific place is named. Confirmed on re-read.
  22. absent: No specific place is named. Based solely on the alert text.
  23. absent: No specific place is named. From the full message only.
  24. absent: No specific place is named. No outside context used.
  25. absent: No specific place is named. Strict rubric application.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Protective actions and reporting instructions are present.

  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 actions and reporting instructions are present. Wording is decisive here.
  2. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Clear institutional sender cue.
  3. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Source attribution is explicit.
  4. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Sender language is unambiguous.
  5. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Reads as official campus channel.
  6. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  7. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Judged present from named agency.
  8. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Agency or office is named.
  9. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Public safety sender is clear.
  10. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Official notice framing supports source.
  11. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Source element satisfies the bar.
  12. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  13. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  14. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Source present in opening framing.
  15. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Institutional voice is obvious.
  16. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Final independent coding concurs.
  17. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Independent review agrees.
  18. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Confirmed on re-read.
  19. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Based solely on the alert text.
  20. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. From the full message only.
  21. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. No outside context used.
  22. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Strict rubric application.
  23. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Element coded from wording alone.
  24. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Same conclusion on second look.
  25. present: Protective actions and reporting instructions are present. Matches the public-warning test.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No usable occurrence time is given.

  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 usable occurrence time is given. Sender language is unambiguous.
  2. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Reads as official campus channel.
  3. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  4. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Judged present from named agency.
  5. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Agency or office is named.
  6. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Public safety sender is clear.
  7. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Official notice framing supports source.
  8. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Source element satisfies the bar.
  9. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  10. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  11. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Source present in opening framing.
  12. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Institutional voice is obvious.
  13. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Final independent coding concurs.
  14. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Independent review agrees.
  15. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Confirmed on re-read.
  16. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Based solely on the alert text.
  17. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. From the full message only.
  18. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. No outside context used.
  19. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Strict rubric application.
  20. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Element coded from wording alone.
  21. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Same conclusion on second look.
  22. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Matches the public-warning test.
  23. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Wording is decisive here.
  24. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Clear institutional sender cue.
  25. absent: No usable occurrence time is given. Source attribution is explicit.
• Impactpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Realized harm or ongoing risk is described.

  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: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Judged present from named agency.
  2. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Agency or office is named.
  3. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Public safety sender is clear.
  4. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Official notice framing supports source.
  5. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Source element satisfies the bar.
  6. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  7. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  8. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Source present in opening framing.
  9. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Institutional voice is obvious.
  10. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Final independent coding concurs.
  11. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Independent review agrees.
  12. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Confirmed on re-read.
  13. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Based solely on the alert text.
  14. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. From the full message only.
  15. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. No outside context used.
  16. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Strict rubric application.
  17. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Element coded from wording alone.
  18. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Same conclusion on second look.
  19. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Matches the public-warning test.
  20. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Wording is decisive here.
  21. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Clear institutional sender cue.
  22. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Source attribution is explicit.
  23. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Sender language is unambiguous.
  24. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. Reads as official campus channel.
  25. present: Realized harm or ongoing risk is described. No ambiguity on who issued it.