Theft attempt at the Ohio State Team Shop

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

  OSU Public Safety Notice is the source.

  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 Public Safety Notice identifies the sender Independent review agrees.
  2. present: OSUPD timely warning is the named source Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Department of Public Safety notice is the channel Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Alert is issued as an OSU Public Safety Notice From the full message only.
  5. present: Source cue is Clery timely-warning language No outside context used.
  6. present: Ohio State Public Safety Notice identifies the sender Strict rubric application.
  7. present: OSUPD timely warning is the named source Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Department of Public Safety notice is the channel Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Alert is issued as an OSU Public Safety Notice Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Source cue is Clery timely-warning language Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Ohio State Public Safety Notice identifies the sender Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: OSUPD timely warning is the named source Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Department of Public Safety notice is the channel Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Alert is issued as an OSU Public Safety Notice Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Source cue is Clery timely-warning language Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Ohio State Public Safety Notice identifies the sender Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: OSUPD timely warning is the named source Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Department of Public Safety notice is the channel Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Alert is issued as an OSU Public Safety Notice Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Source cue is Clery timely-warning language Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Ohio State Public Safety Notice identifies the sender No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: OSUPD timely warning is the named source Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Department of Public Safety notice is the channel Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Alert is issued as an OSU Public Safety Notice Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Source cue is Clery timely-warning language Final pass agrees with the set.
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Named crime is the hazard.

  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 is the named crime under investigation Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Offense type is stated in the notice body Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Crime under investigation is the hazard Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Named incident type is the hazard element From the full message only.
  5. present: Hazard wording is the reported crime No outside context used.
  6. present: Hazard is the named crime under investigation Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Offense type is stated in the notice body Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Crime under investigation is the hazard Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Named incident type is the hazard element Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Hazard wording is the reported crime Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Hazard is the named crime under investigation Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Offense type is stated in the notice body Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Crime under investigation is the hazard Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Named incident type is the hazard element Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Hazard wording is the reported crime Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Hazard is the named crime under investigation Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Offense type is stated in the notice body Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Crime under investigation is the hazard Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Named incident type is the hazard element Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Hazard wording is the reported crime Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Hazard is the named crime under investigation No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Offense type is stated in the notice body Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Crime under investigation is the hazard Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Named incident type is the hazard element Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Hazard wording is the reported crime Final pass agrees with the set.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Campus or near-campus place is given.

  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: A building, street, or campus area is specified Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Location detail anchors the incident on or near campus Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Geographic place cue appears in the notice Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Block, street, or building context is given From the full message only.
  5. present: Place language supports a location element No outside context used.
  6. present: A building, street, or campus area is specified Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Location detail anchors the incident on or near campus Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Geographic place cue appears in the notice Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Block, street, or building context is given Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Place language supports a location element Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: A building, street, or campus area is specified Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Location detail anchors the incident on or near campus Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Geographic place cue appears in the notice Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Block, street, or building context is given Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Place language supports a location element Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: A building, street, or campus area is specified Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Location detail anchors the incident on or near campus Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Geographic place cue appears in the notice Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Block, street, or building context is given Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Place language supports a location element Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: A building, street, or campus area is specified No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Location detail anchors the incident on or near campus Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Geographic place cue appears in the notice Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Block, street, or building context is given Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Place language supports a location element Final pass agrees with the set.
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Contact police and safety precautions.

  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: Guidance is contact OSUPD or CPD with information Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Community is told how to report information Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Protective and reporting instructions appear Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Call University Police language is guidance From the full message only.
  5. present: Action language includes safety precautions No outside context used.
  6. present: Guidance is contact OSUPD or CPD with information Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Community is told how to report information Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Protective and reporting instructions appear Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Call University Police language is guidance Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Action language includes safety precautions Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: Guidance is contact OSUPD or CPD with information Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Community is told how to report information Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Protective and reporting instructions appear Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Call University Police language is guidance Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Action language includes safety precautions Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: Guidance is contact OSUPD or CPD with information Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Community is told how to report information Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Protective and reporting instructions appear Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Call University Police language is guidance Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Action language includes safety precautions Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: Guidance is contact OSUPD or CPD with information No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Community is told how to report information Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Protective and reporting instructions appear Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Call University Police language is guidance Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Action language includes safety precautions Final pass agrees with the set.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Clock time present.

  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: A clock time is stated for the reported offense Independent review agrees.
  2. present: Approximate time of the incident is given Confirmed on re-read.
  3. present: Temporal detail appears as a clock time Based solely on the alert text.
  4. present: Time of day is explicit in the notice From the full message only.
  5. present: Hour language supports time coding No outside context used.
  6. present: A clock time is stated for the reported offense Strict rubric application.
  7. present: Approximate time of the incident is given Element coded from wording alone.
  8. present: Temporal detail appears as a clock time Same conclusion on second look.
  9. present: Time of day is explicit in the notice Matches the public-warning test.
  10. present: Hour language supports time coding Wording is decisive here.
  11. present: A clock time is stated for the reported offense Clear cut for this element.
  12. present: Approximate time of the incident is given Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. present: Temporal detail appears as a clock time Standard pattern for this element.
  14. present: Time of day is explicit in the notice Consistent with prior passes.
  15. present: Hour language supports time coding Re-checked against the full text.
  16. present: A clock time is stated for the reported offense Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. present: Approximate time of the incident is given Text support is adequate.
  18. present: Temporal detail appears as a clock time Rubric threshold met.
  19. present: Time of day is explicit in the notice Second independent look agrees.
  20. present: Hour language supports time coding Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. present: A clock time is stated for the reported offense No inference beyond the notice.
  22. present: Approximate time of the incident is given Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. present: Temporal detail appears as a clock time Element decision is stable.
  24. present: Time of day is explicit in the notice Full-message pass confirms.
  25. present: Hour language supports time coding Final pass agrees with the set.
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  No injury counts stated.

  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 injury counts are stated Independent review agrees.
  2. absent: Impact element lacks casualty numbers Confirmed on re-read.
  3. absent: No killed or injured tally appears Based solely on the alert text.
  4. absent: Human impact counts are absent From the full message only.
  5. absent: No numeric casualty impact is given No outside context used.
  6. absent: No injury counts are stated Strict rubric application.
  7. absent: Impact element lacks casualty numbers Element coded from wording alone.
  8. absent: No killed or injured tally appears Same conclusion on second look.
  9. absent: Human impact counts are absent Matches the public-warning test.
  10. absent: No numeric casualty impact is given Wording is decisive here.
  11. absent: No injury counts are stated Clear cut for this element.
  12. absent: Impact element lacks casualty numbers Borderline language still codes this way.
  13. absent: No killed or injured tally appears Standard pattern for this element.
  14. absent: Human impact counts are absent Consistent with prior passes.
  15. absent: No numeric casualty impact is given Re-checked against the full text.
  16. absent: No injury counts are stated Pass applies the same bar as peers.
  17. absent: Impact element lacks casualty numbers Text support is adequate.
  18. absent: No killed or injured tally appears Rubric threshold met.
  19. absent: Human impact counts are absent Second independent look agrees.
  20. absent: No numeric casualty impact is given Coding rests only on transmitted text.
  21. absent: No injury counts are stated No inference beyond the notice.
  22. absent: Impact element lacks casualty numbers Present or absent is unambiguous.
  23. absent: No killed or injured tally appears Element decision is stable.
  24. absent: Human impact counts are absent Full-message pass confirms.
  25. absent: No numeric casualty impact is given Final pass agrees with the set.