Bomb threat bus stop near the football stadium

To check this alert, Claude Opus 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

  Present, 25 of 25. Two attributions appear: the "Buckeye Alert" brand signs the message and "CPD reports" credits Columbus police as the reporting agency.

  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: Two sources appear: the "Buckeye Alert" brand and "CPD" as the reporting police agency.
  2. present: Both "Buckeye Alert" and "CPD" identify the reporting authorities.
  3. present: "Buckeye Alert" and "CPD" identify the alert brand and reporting police agency.
  4. present: Branded "Buckeye Alert" and attributes the report to "CPD".
  5. present: Named twice over: the "Buckeye Alert" brand and "CPD reports".
  6. present: It names both the "Buckeye Alert" brand and "CPD" as reporting agency.
  7. present: "Buckeye Alert" signs the message and "CPD" is named as the reporting agency.
  8. present: "Buckeye Alert" signs the message and "CPD reports" names the police agency.
  9. present: "Buckeye Alert" signs it and "CPD" is named as the reporting agency.
  10. present: Both the "Buckeye Alert" brand and the reporting agency "CPD" are named.
  11. present: It carries the "Buckeye Alert" signature and attributes the report to CPD.
  12. present: "Buckeye Alert" plus "CPD reports" name both the alert system and reporting police.
  13. present: It is tagged "Buckeye Alert" and attributes the report to "CPD".
  14. present: "Buckeye Alert" signs the message and "CPD" is named as reporting agency.
  15. present: Two sources are present: the "Buckeye Alert" brand and "CPD reports".
  16. present: Both "Buckeye Alert" and "CPD" identify sending and reporting authorities.
  17. present: It carries the "Buckeye Alert" signature and attributes the report to "CPD".
  18. present: It is tagged "Buckeye Alert" and cites "CPD", a named police agency.
  19. present: Both the "Buckeye Alert" brand and "CPD" as reporting agency are named.
  20. present: Branded "Buckeye Alert" and attributes the report to "CPD".
  21. present: "Buckeye Alert" brands the message and "CPD reports" credits the police as the reporting agency.
  22. present: It is branded "Buckeye Alert" and attributes the report to "CPD".
  23. present: Both "Buckeye Alert" and "CPD" are named as reporting authorities.
  24. present: "Buckeye Alert" and "CPD" both identify sending and reporting authorities.
  25. present: "Buckeye Alert" signs the message and "CPD" is credited as the reporting agency.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. The hazard is named outright, a "bomb threat targeting bus stop near Ohio Stadium", which all reads found specific.

  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 threat is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop near Ohio Stadium".
  2. present: It names a "bomb threat", a specific hazard.
  3. present: The threat named is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  4. present: Names a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  5. present: Specific threat stated as a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  6. present: The threat is specific: a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  7. present: It names a "bomb threat targeting bus stop near Ohio Stadium".
  8. present: The threat is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop", specifically named.
  9. present: A "bomb threat targeting bus stop" is a specific named hazard.
  10. present: The hazard is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop", specific and explicit.
  11. present: The hazard is named explicitly as a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  12. present: A "bomb threat targeting bus stop near Ohio Stadium" is a specific hazard.
  13. present: The threat named is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  14. present: A "bomb threat targeting bus stop" names an explosive threat specifically.
  15. present: A "bomb threat targeting bus stop near Ohio Stadium" is a specific named hazard.
  16. present: It names a "bomb threat targeting bus stop", a specific threat.
  17. present: The hazard is named as a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  18. present: The threat is stated as a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  19. present: The hazard is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  20. present: Names a "bomb threat targeting bus stop", a specific threat.
  21. present: The hazard is named as a "bomb threat targeting bus stop near Ohio Stadium".
  22. present: The hazard named is a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  23. present: The threat is specified as a "bomb threat targeting bus stop".
  24. present: A "bomb threat targeting bus stop" is a specifically named hazard.
  25. present: A "bomb threat targeting bus stop" is a specifically named threat.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 25 of 25. Two locators are given, the "bus stop near Ohio Stadium" and the cross streets "Glenn+Tuttle", leaving the reads no room for disagreement.

  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: Locations are given as the bus stop near Ohio Stadium and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  2. present: Places named include a "bus stop near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  3. present: Locations are given as "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  4. present: Locates it "near Ohio Stadium" at "Glenn+Tuttle".
  5. present: Location given as the bus stop near Ohio Stadium at "Glenn+Tuttle".
  6. present: Places are named: "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  7. present: Locations given include the bus stop near Ohio Stadium and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  8. present: Locations given include the "bus stop near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  9. present: Two locations are given, "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  10. present: Location is given twice: near Ohio Stadium and at "Glenn+Tuttle".
  11. present: Locations given include "near Ohio Stadium" and the cross streets "Glenn+Tuttle".
  12. present: It names the bus stop near Ohio Stadium and the Glenn and Tuttle area.
  13. present: Two location cues are given: "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  14. present: It names the bus stop near Ohio Stadium and the Glenn and Tuttle area.
  15. present: It locates the threat near Ohio Stadium and at "Glenn+Tuttle".
  16. present: Locations given include "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  17. present: Locations are specific: "bus stop near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  18. present: Location is given twice: "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  19. present: Locations are specified, "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  20. present: Locates it "near Ohio Stadium" and at "Glenn+Tuttle".
  21. present: Two locators are given: the bus stop near Ohio Stadium and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  22. present: Locations given are the bus stop "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  23. present: Locations given are "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
  24. present: It locates the threat near Ohio Stadium at "Glenn+Tuttle".
  25. present: Two location cues appear: "near Ohio Stadium" and "Glenn+Tuttle".
• Guidanceabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25. "Police investigating" reports responder activity, not an action for recipients; no read found any instruction to avoid, evacuate or report.

  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 reports police activity but gives recipients no action to take.
  2. absent: No protective instruction is given; only police activity is described.
  3. absent: The text reports police investigating but asks nothing of recipients.
  4. absent: Police activity is described but recipients are given nothing to do.
  5. absent: Says police are investigating but gives recipients no action to take.
  6. absent: It reports police investigating but asks nothing of the recipients themselves.
  7. absent: Readers are given no action; police activity is described instead.
  8. absent: It reports police activity but asks nothing of recipients.
  9. absent: Readers are given no action; only police activity is described.
  10. absent: The message reports police investigation but asks nothing of recipients.
  11. absent: Recipients are given no action; the message says only that police are investigating.
  12. absent: Recipients are given no protective action; only police activity is described.
  13. absent: The text describes police investigating but asks nothing of readers.
  14. absent: Readers are told nothing to do; only police activity is described.
  15. absent: Recipients are told police are investigating but are not asked to do anything.
  16. absent: It reports police investigating but asks nothing of the recipients.
  17. absent: It reports police investigating but asks nothing of recipients.
  18. absent: Readers are told police are investigating but given no action of their own.
  19. absent: No protective action is asked of readers; police activity is only reported.
  20. absent: Recipients are told what police are doing, not what they should do.
  21. absent: It reports that police are investigating but asks nothing of recipients.
  22. absent: Police investigating is responder activity, not an action asked of recipients.
  23. absent: It notes police are investigating but gives recipients no action to take.
  24. absent: It reports police investigating but gives recipients no action to take.
  25. absent: No protective action is requested; it only says police are investigating.
• Timeabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Absent, 0 of 25. The alert carries no clock time, date or recency word, so nothing tells readers when the threat was made or received.

  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 time reference or recency word accompanies the report.
  2. absent: The message carries no clock time, date, or recency word.
  3. absent: No time reference or recency marker is included.
  4. absent: No clock time or recency word accompanies the threat.
  5. absent: No clock time, date, or recency cue is provided.
  6. absent: No time, date or recency marker appears in the message.
  7. absent: No clock time, date, or recency wording appears in the alert.
  8. absent: No time, date, or immediacy language accompanies the report.
  9. absent: No time, date, or recency expression is present.
  10. absent: No clock time, date, or word like now situates the threat.
  11. absent: No clock time, date, or word conveying recency appears in the alert.
  12. absent: No clock time or recency reference appears in the message.
  13. absent: No time or date for the threat is provided.
  14. absent: No time reference appears in the message.
  15. absent: No time or date is stated for the threat or the report.
  16. absent: No time, date, or recency word is included in the message.
  17. absent: The message contains no time, date or recency marker.
  18. absent: Neither a clock time nor a recency word appears in the message.
  19. absent: No time, date, or recency marker is present.
  20. absent: No time, date, or recency marker is present.
  21. absent: No clock time, date, or recency marker accompanies the report.
  22. absent: No clock time, date, or word conveying recency appears.
  23. absent: No time, date, or immediacy word appears in the message.
  24. absent: No time, date or recency term appears in the message.
  25. absent: No clock time, date or recency indicator is given.
• Impactpresent20/25

  Final assessment

  Present, 20 of 25. "Threat not deemed credible" is an explicit severity judgment about the hazard. Five reads dissented, arguing the phrase negates impact rather than conveying it.

  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: The severity is assessed explicitly: "Threat not deemed credible".
  2. present: Severity is assessed explicitly: the "Threat not deemed credible".
  3. present: Severity is assessed explicitly: "Threat not deemed credible".
  4. present: Explicitly rates the severity: "Threat not deemed credible".
  5. present: Explicitly rates the severity by saying the "Threat not deemed credible".
  6. present: It explicitly assesses severity by saying the "Threat not deemed credible".
  7. present: It assesses severity directly, stating the "Threat not deemed credible".
  8. absent: Severity is dismissed rather than described: "Threat not deemed credible".
  9. present: It explicitly addresses severity, stating the "Threat not deemed credible".
  10. absent: Consequence is negated rather than conveyed: "Threat not deemed credible".
  11. present: It makes an explicit severity judgment, stating the "Threat not deemed credible".
  12. present: "Threat not deemed credible" is an explicit assessment of the danger level.
  13. present: It expressly rates the risk, stating the "Threat not deemed credible".
  14. present: It characterizes the seriousness of the threat, saying it is "not deemed credible".
  15. present: The severity assessment "Threat not deemed credible" tells readers how serious the risk is judged.
  16. absent: It says the threat is "not deemed credible", which negates rather than conveys impact.
  17. present: It explicitly assesses severity, stating the "Threat not deemed credible".
  18. absent: Rather than stating consequences it says the "Threat not deemed credible".
  19. present: Severity is assessed explicitly: the "Threat not deemed credible".
  20. present: It explicitly assesses severity: "Threat not deemed credible".
  21. present: Severity is addressed explicitly in the judgment that the "Threat not deemed credible".
  22. present: Severity is assessed directly: the "Threat not deemed credible", a statement about the danger level.
  23. present: Severity is assessed explicitly: "Threat not deemed credible".
  24. absent: Saying the "Threat not deemed credible" removes rather than conveys expected harm.
  25. present: Severity is explicitly assessed: "Threat not deemed credible".