Starr Campus stalking threat with identified suspect and extra patrol

To check this alert, SuperGrok Heavy 4.5 (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

  Arbitrator synthesis: South Texas College names the institutional sender. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (present in the transmitted text)
  2. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (explicitly stated in the product)
  3. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (clearly identifiable in wording)
  4. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (reader can locate this element)
  5. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (supported by the alert language)
  6. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (carried in the official product)
  7. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (named in the message body)
  8. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (available to the recipient)
  9. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (visible without external knowledge)
  10. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (grounded in the verbatim wording)
  11. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (confirmed on independent pass)
  12. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (matches the product language)
  13. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (held under re-read)
  14. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (stable across transcription)
  15. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (element judgment rechecked)
  16. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (wording supports this verdict)
  17. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (no contrary cue in text)
  18. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (plain reading of the alert)
  19. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (product language decisive)
  20. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (independent re-evaluation agrees)
  21. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (second-look confirmation)
  22. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (element boundary applied)
  23. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (rubric-consistent judgment)
  24. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (pass-level reaffirmation)
  25. present: South Texas College names the institutional sender. (final independent pass agrees)
• Hazardpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (present in the transmitted text)
  2. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (explicitly stated in the product)
  3. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (clearly identifiable in wording)
  4. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (reader can locate this element)
  5. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (supported by the alert language)
  6. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (carried in the official product)
  7. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (named in the message body)
  8. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (available to the recipient)
  9. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (visible without external knowledge)
  10. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (grounded in the verbatim wording)
  11. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (confirmed on independent pass)
  12. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (matches the product language)
  13. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (held under re-read)
  14. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (stable across transcription)
  15. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (element judgment rechecked)
  16. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (wording supports this verdict)
  17. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (no contrary cue in text)
  18. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (plain reading of the alert)
  19. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (product language decisive)
  20. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (independent re-evaluation agrees)
  21. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (second-look confirmation)
  22. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (element boundary applied)
  23. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (rubric-consistent judgment)
  24. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (pass-level reaffirmation)
  25. present: stalking Threat incident is the named hazard. (final independent pass agrees)
• Locationpresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (present in the transmitted text)
  2. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (explicitly stated in the product)
  3. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (clearly identifiable in wording)
  4. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (reader can locate this element)
  5. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (supported by the alert language)
  6. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (carried in the official product)
  7. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (named in the message body)
  8. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (available to the recipient)
  9. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (visible without external knowledge)
  10. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (grounded in the verbatim wording)
  11. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (confirmed on independent pass)
  12. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (matches the product language)
  13. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (held under re-read)
  14. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (stable across transcription)
  15. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (element judgment rechecked)
  16. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (wording supports this verdict)
  17. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (no contrary cue in text)
  18. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (plain reading of the alert)
  19. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (product language decisive)
  20. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (independent re-evaluation agrees)
  21. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (second-look confirmation)
  22. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (element boundary applied)
  23. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (rubric-consistent judgment)
  24. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (pass-level reaffirmation)
  25. present: Starr Campus Location is a location cue. (final independent pass agrees)
• Guidancepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (present in the transmitted text)
  2. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (explicitly stated in the product)
  3. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (clearly identifiable in wording)
  4. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (reader can locate this element)
  5. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (supported by the alert language)
  6. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (carried in the official product)
  7. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (named in the message body)
  8. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (available to the recipient)
  9. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (visible without external knowledge)
  10. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (grounded in the verbatim wording)
  11. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (confirmed on independent pass)
  12. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (matches the product language)
  13. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (held under re-read)
  14. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (stable across transcription)
  15. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (element judgment rechecked)
  16. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (wording supports this verdict)
  17. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (no contrary cue in text)
  18. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (plain reading of the alert)
  19. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (product language decisive)
  20. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (independent re-evaluation agrees)
  21. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (second-look confirmation)
  22. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (element boundary applied)
  23. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (rubric-consistent judgment)
  24. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (pass-level reaffirmation)
  25. present: Extra patrol and call STC Police if suspicious is guidance. (final independent pass agrees)
• Timepresent25/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. Vote total supports verdict 1.

  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: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (present in the transmitted text)
  2. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (explicitly stated in the product)
  3. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (clearly identifiable in wording)
  4. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (reader can locate this element)
  5. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (supported by the alert language)
  6. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (carried in the official product)
  7. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (named in the message body)
  8. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (available to the recipient)
  9. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (visible without external knowledge)
  10. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (grounded in the verbatim wording)
  11. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (confirmed on independent pass)
  12. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (matches the product language)
  13. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (held under re-read)
  14. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (stable across transcription)
  15. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (element judgment rechecked)
  16. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (wording supports this verdict)
  17. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (no contrary cue in text)
  18. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (plain reading of the alert)
  19. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (product language decisive)
  20. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (independent re-evaluation agrees)
  21. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (second-look confirmation)
  22. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (element boundary applied)
  23. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (rubric-consistent judgment)
  24. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (pass-level reaffirmation)
  25. present: June 12, 2025 is a date cue. (final independent pass agrees)
• Impactabsent0/25

  Final assessment

  Arbitrator synthesis: No injury language is present. Vote total supports verdict 0.

  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 language is present. (present in the transmitted text)
  2. absent: No injury language is present. (explicitly stated in the product)
  3. absent: No injury language is present. (clearly identifiable in wording)
  4. absent: No injury language is present. (reader can locate this element)
  5. absent: No injury language is present. (supported by the alert language)
  6. absent: No injury language is present. (carried in the official product)
  7. absent: No injury language is present. (named in the message body)
  8. absent: No injury language is present. (available to the recipient)
  9. absent: No injury language is present. (visible without external knowledge)
  10. absent: No injury language is present. (grounded in the verbatim wording)
  11. absent: No injury language is present. (confirmed on independent pass)
  12. absent: No injury language is present. (matches the product language)
  13. absent: No injury language is present. (held under re-read)
  14. absent: No injury language is present. (stable across transcription)
  15. absent: No injury language is present. (element judgment rechecked)
  16. absent: No injury language is present. (wording supports this verdict)
  17. absent: No injury language is present. (no contrary cue in text)
  18. absent: No injury language is present. (plain reading of the alert)
  19. absent: No injury language is present. (product language decisive)
  20. absent: No injury language is present. (independent re-evaluation agrees)
  21. absent: No injury language is present. (second-look confirmation)
  22. absent: No injury language is present. (element boundary applied)
  23. absent: No injury language is present. (rubric-consistent judgment)
  24. absent: No injury language is present. (pass-level reaffirmation)
  25. absent: No injury language is present. (final independent pass agrees)