Surreptitious photographing at Desert Vista campus bathroom

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

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

  Final assessment

  Surreptitious photographing is the named 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: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. From the full message only.
  2. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. No outside context used.
  3. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Strict rubric application.
  4. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Element coded from wording alone.
  5. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Same conclusion on second look.
  6. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Matches the public-warning test.
  7. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Wording is decisive here.
  8. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Clear institutional sender cue.
  9. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Source attribution is explicit.
  10. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Sender language is unambiguous.
  11. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Reads as official campus channel.
  12. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  13. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Judged present from named agency.
  14. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Agency or office is named.
  15. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Public safety sender is clear.
  16. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Official notice framing supports source.
  17. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Source element satisfies the bar.
  18. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  19. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  20. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Source present in opening framing.
  21. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Institutional voice is obvious.
  22. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Final independent coding concurs.
  23. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Independent review agrees.
  24. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Confirmed on re-read.
  25. present: Surreptitious photographing is the named hazard. Based solely on the alert text.
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

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

  Final assessment

  Safety recommendations and reporting guidance 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: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Wording is decisive here.
  2. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Clear institutional sender cue.
  3. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Source attribution is explicit.
  4. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Sender language is unambiguous.
  5. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Reads as official campus channel.
  6. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. No ambiguity on who issued it.
  7. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Judged present from named agency.
  8. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Agency or office is named.
  9. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Public safety sender is clear.
  10. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Official notice framing supports source.
  11. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Source element satisfies the bar.
  12. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Re-checked against full paragraph.
  13. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Pass agrees with majority logic.
  14. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Source present in opening framing.
  15. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Institutional voice is obvious.
  16. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Final independent coding concurs.
  17. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Independent review agrees.
  18. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Confirmed on re-read.
  19. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Based solely on the alert text.
  20. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. From the full message only.
  21. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. No outside context used.
  22. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Strict rubric application.
  23. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Element coded from wording alone.
  24. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Same conclusion on second look.
  25. present: Safety recommendations and reporting guidance are present. Matches the public-warning test.
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Date and time of incident are stated.

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

  Final assessment

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