On the morning of September 23, 2015, Purdue University Police responded to a bomb threat at Schleman Hall of Student Services, an academic-services building on Purdue's West Lafayette campus. Police and fire crews arrived around 11:45 AM CDT, evacuated the building, and conducted a two-hour sweep. PurdueALERT messages directed students and staff to avoid the building and follow shelter instructions. After roughly two hours, no explosive device was located and the building was reopened.
3 messages in sequence · 3 verified verbatim
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.
Bomb threat reported at Purdue WL - Schleman Hall - 475 Stadium Mall Drive); avoid the area; check http://purdue.edu/ea for updates
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.
Open to load the 25 reads.
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.
Open to load the 25 reads.
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.
Open to load the 25 reads.
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.
Open to load the 25 reads.
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.
Open to load the 25 reads.
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.
Open to load the 25 reads.
Systematic AI judgments with visible reasoning, not human-validated codings.
About this analysisCampus Alert Archive. "Purdue University: Bomb threat, September 23, 2015." Incident of September 23, 2015. Added May 2026; last updated July 2026. https://campusalertarchive.com/case/purdue-university-schleman-hall-bomb-threat-2015-09-23/
Alert text quoted on this page remains the work of the issuing institution; the archive is a secondary source.